Topics that despondent is monitoring | sgForums.comhttp://sgforums.com/users/172112/monitored
en-US6019 Steps to becoming City Harvest Church member.<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Topic started by James_Tan_1983 on 02 Mar `12, 5:23PM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">I
hope people can see the humour of this, and start to think
again.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">
&nbsp;</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">1.
Confess to the world that you love Jesus, and intend to follow Him
and devote your life to Him. It does not matter if you do not mean
it, just saying it will guarantee acceptance from your CHC brothers
and sisters.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">2.
Acquire the skill of speaking in tongues, get water-baptized and
claim you feel that your life has been change. Do not pass on any
opportunity to claim that your conversion is attributed to Kong Hee
only.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">3.
Attend all CHC services and events. In case you fail to go to
service, follow the service on your iPad, iPhone, or Mac Workbook.
Consequently post some willy nilly phrases on your facebook to
create the impression that you were in church. If you do not own a
iPAd or iPhone, pretend to put money in the envelope yet instead
use it to purchase this necessity.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">
4.Use following rules of conduct during worship:</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">--
Put your face into the “gaze into eternity” mode: practice to
perfection in front of the mirror.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">--
Raise your hands in devotion: this part is easy ,just follow your
neighbour worshipper.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">
--Sing along with all the songs. If you do not know the words,
pretend as the music is so loud that nobody will tell the
difference</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">
--Always stand up when asked to do so, and start to clap
frantically when Kong Hee releases the “Let’s-give-the-lord-a-clap”
command.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">--
Wiping away a tear once in a while and sighing every 4 minutes
might get you on the video screen. This earns respect from fellow
worshippers</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">--
Shout “Amen”, “Hallelujah”, “Praise the lord”, “Thank you Jesus” or
read the words in bold on the screen out loud, when instructed by
Kong Hee.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">
--This is also the time to put your newly acquired “speaking in
tongues” into practice. Don't be nervous and do not hold back, just
shut down your brain and make it up as you go along. everybody else
does. A few beers before service might help.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">
--Extra devotional points, and guaranteed camera coverage can be
obtained by falling to the floor, shaking your body, laughing
frantically while yelling “AH-JAYSUS”</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">--If
any first timers stand up next to you, be the first to welcome them
to the greatest church in Singapore. If hot and sexy, hug them.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">
--Always check who is sitting next to you. Ensure you are seated
next to good looking fellow members. Chances are, Kong Hee will ask
you to hug them, or hold their hand. And when, no need to hold
back, give it a good squeeze as Kong Hee has allowed you to do.
&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">5.
Every service, make sure you put a large amount of money in the
bucket. Make sure that everyone in your vicinity sees you giving
money. Try to get camera attention by letting the tears run from
your eyes. If you have no money, pretend, the room is too dark
&nbsp;for anybody to notice. Better to keep the money for the
cellgroup meeting’s offering, so you can boast how generous you
are, and avoid being reported to Kong Hee.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">6.
When listening to Kong Hee, or your CHC friends, occasionally
confuse something they say with something that Jesus had said. This
will impress them, and they will think highly of you. Or at least
you will not be blacklisted yet.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">7.
Stop reading the Bible. Only read from your notes from CHC Bible
school, or the services. Preferably learn following verses by
heart, or have page markers, so you can quickly pull them out:</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">
Malachi 3:10<br />
Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food
in my house. Test me in this,” says the LORD Almighty, “and see if
I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven<strong style=
"font: inherit;">AND POUR OUT SO MUCH BLESSING THAT THERE WILL NOT
BE ROOM ENOUGH TO STORE IT.</strong></p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">
Joshua 1:8&nbsp;<br />
for then thou shalt make thy way&nbsp;<strong style=
"font: inherit;">PROSPEROUS</strong>, and then thou
shalt&nbsp;<strong style="font: inherit;">HAVE GOOD
SUCCESS</strong></p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">
Isaiah 54:17<br />
No weapon that is formed against thee shall&nbsp;<strong style=
"font: inherit;">PROSPER</strong>;&nbsp;</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">3
John 1:2<br />
I wish above all things that thou mayest&nbsp;<strong style=
"font: inherit;">PROSPER</strong>&nbsp;and be
in&nbsp;<strong style="font: inherit;">HEALTH</strong>, even as thy
soul<strong style="font: inherit;">PROSPERETH</strong></p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">Phil
4:18<br />
But my God&nbsp;<strong style="font: inherit;">SHALL SUPPLY ALL
YOUR NEED ACCORDING TO HIS RICHES</strong>&nbsp;…</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">2
Cor 8:9<br />
For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he
was&nbsp;<strong style=
"font: inherit;">RICH</strong>&nbsp;(important to stop the verse
right here )</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">Job
8:5,7&nbsp;<br />
and make the habitation of thy righteousness&nbsp;<strong style=
"font: inherit;">PROSPEROUS</strong>. 7 Though thy beginning was
small, yet thy latter end should&nbsp;<strong style=
"font: inherit;">GREATLY INCREASE</strong>&nbsp;</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">Job
22:25<br />
Yea, the Almighty shall be thy defence, and thou shalt
have&nbsp;<strong style="font: inherit;">PLENTY OF
SILVER</strong>.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">
&nbsp;</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">
Avoid any verses that sound like:&nbsp;suffering of Christ
--&nbsp;Camels going thru needle eyes --&nbsp;Thou shall be content
-- the Son of God&nbsp;had nowhere to lay is head
&nbsp;--&nbsp;Thou shall not add anything to the Word of God
--&nbsp;Only 2 maximum 3 can speak in tongues --&nbsp;False
prophets come with great signs&nbsp;…</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">and
discard all the verses where God kills firstborns, pregnant women,
as you have not learned to put them into context, it might damage
your gullible spirituality.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">8.
Regularly quote Kong Hee. This will impress other CHC’ers of your
“Biblical” knowledge, even if you do not know squat about
theology.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">9.
Believe in all Kong Hee’s, or CHC guest’s revelations, regardless
of how silly they may seem. &nbsp; Even if you do not believe in
them, just pretend, same as everybody else.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">10.
Abandon all sound reason and critical thinking. This is imperative.
It is not possible to become an honest CHC member if you question
Kong Hee’s teachings with reason or scepticism. This would be the
fastest way for you to become a “backslider”.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">11.
Smile a lot to everyone you see. Say you love them even when you
hate them. You must pretend at all costs, to love your worst
enemies even if it kills them in the end. This is even more valid
towards NCC and FCBC members. See also next point.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">12.
Attempt to convert your “unbelieving” friends. This means
mainstream Christians, as well as NCC and FCBC non-believers. Make
an ass out of yourself to the point of getting them angry. Make
sure you always keep smiling and tell them how much you love them.
This will escalate their anger and leave you fully satisfied. If
they persist, claim that they are in league with the Devil and only
faith in Jesus can release them (make sure you keep smiling).</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">13.
If anyone presents reasonable arguments against CHC, simply go into
denial. Say that their tempting only makes your faith grow
stronger. Never submit to them. No worries, after 3 services or so,
the Kong Hee mantra “Do not let them hijack your faith” will kick
in automatically.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">14.
If anybody quotes a verse from the Bible that contradicts Kong
Hee’s position, simply say that they're taking that verse out of
context. The out-of-context ploy will get you out of many difficult
situations and will make it seem that you actually understand the
correct context when in fact you don't.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">15.
Advertise your CHC membership.<br />
Examples: keep a Kong Hee (for the females*) or Sun Ho (for the
males*) picture in your wallet or use him as your wallpaper. Always
positive to wear Ed Hardy clothes from Christian Audigier or
accessoires from Skin Couture. * The reverse is not allowed as Kong
Hee does not like gay people.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">16.
Show unconditional support to Kong Hee. If the situation requires,
drag banners into service or call to arms on the internet.
Violently disagree when accussed of idolizing Kong Hee or Sun
Ho</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">17.
Marry within the church and send your kids to the free-of charge
brainwash sessions in “children’s church. Profess family values. If
you catch your hubby cheating on you, never let CHC know. Never get
a divorce, regardless of how miserable you both feel. If the news
does get out, pray you have money so you can have the Jack Neo
treatment.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">18.
Buy all the "devotional" material that is on offer. Make sure your
cell group leader hears about this. If it is Sun Ho developed
stuff, buy in 10-fold to ensure extra blessings.</p>
<p style="color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">19.
The ultimate sacrifice and and all time CHC nr. 1 will always be:
Give your possessions away to CHC. The Bible says give all you have
to anyone who asks (Luke 6:30). Kong Hee is asking every week to
give him all your money, to sell your house, car,… Warning: If you
do not do this, you are disobeying a direct Jesus request. However,
if you do obey this command, Kong Hee will guarantee you a
Christian position and you will garner his greatest esteem and
respect until the well dries up.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by charlize on 20 Aug `13, 10:11PM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>wot. <img src="/images/emoticons/classic/icon_lol.gif" alt=
"icon_lol.gif" /></p>
</div>
</div>
Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:23:30 +0800sgforums.com:4163:448275James_Tan_1983http://sgforums.com/forums/4163/topics/448275
Favourite Bible verse anyone?<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Topic started by Tcmc on 16 Aug `12, 5:04PM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>Would like you guys to share Favourite verses?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by Change2006 on 20 Jul `13, 4:07PM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>There is a bible verses songs video in youtube for kids to learn
bible verses through singing.I think it is a very cute idea.</p>
</div>
</div>
Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:04:12 +0800sgforums.com:1381:457182Tcmchttp://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/457182
should teachers be allowed to punished harshly in school?<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Topic started by despondent on 21 Aug `06, 11:35PM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>harlo!!! yupyup...for the old-timers in sgforums...u may find
tis familiar...but i juz tot i will post tis in a diff.
forum...<br />
<br />
all of us i believe have had our fair share of being punished in
school. some punishments r more physical while others more
psychological...physical ones include caning, CWO, kneeling or
standing for long periods etc...psychological ones like pulling of
ears, facing the wall, being ask to sing in front of whole class
etc...i personally feel tat diff. punishments shld vary wif the
severity of offences n the age of the student involved...surely u
wun wanna shame a university student by punishing him like a
primary schoolboy?<br />
below is a true account of a student i noe who was punished by a
teacher...he was punished for spewing 1 word of vulgarity...<br />
<br />
student: @#%()&amp;*&amp;^%$%^*<br />
teacher: U!!! COME HERE!!! HOW DARE U SAY TAT!!! COME HERE!!!<br />
boy approaches n teacher scolded: WAD DID U SAY JUZ NW?! I DARE U
TO REPEAT WAD U SAID JUZ NW!!!<br />
STUDENT: i didnt say anything...<br />
teacher: DUN DENY IT ALRITE!!! I HEARD WAD U SAID!!! I HEARD
U!!!(pulls student to 1 corner) SLAP URSELF!!! SLAP!!! KEEP ON
SLAPPING!!<br />
(abt 10 min later) teacher: U R NT SLAPPING...U R PATTING!!!(pulls
student out of class) dun wanna slap rite...face the whole school n
slap...<br />
in the end, DM happen to walk pass...teacher complained abt student
to him n student was caned in front of whole class...<br />
after the caning...<br />
teacher: COME HERE!!! (pulls student to one corner) STAND HERE N
CONTINUE TO SLAP URSELF!!! I WANT SLAPS NT PATS!!! (student began
to slap himself) U CALL TAT SLAPPING? HARDER!!! (student slaps
harder) ALRITE!!! KEEP IT TAT WAY!!!<br />
<br />
after abt 5min...<br />
teacher(points finger at student): U R NT SLAPPING AGAIN!!! I TOLD
U TO SLAP HARD RITE!!! HOW DARE U DISOBEY MY ORDERS!!! DO U WANT
ANOTHER ROUND OF PUBLIC CANING??? (student began slapping himself
hard again) MAKE SURE U KEEP TIS UP UNTIL I SAY U CAN STOP, ONE
MORE TIME...N U WILL GET IT FROM ME!!! I WANT EVERY SLAP TO BE
EQUALLY HARD, DO U UNDERSTAND???<br />
<br />
in the end, student was made to slap himself for another 10-15
min...he had red cheeks after tat n had teary eyes...thru out the
time, we could hear the slaps coming from his cheeks...the teacher
kept an eye on him at regular intervals to ensure every slap was
hard, she gave him no chance to slack at all...wad r ur views abt
tis? was the teacher too harsh? was the student deserving of the
punishment? air them here...</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by despondent on 26 May `13, 1:54PM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>Agree wif pikadon..imagine a male n female committing the same
offence but only the male gets caned..double standards
indeed...</p>
</div>
</div>
Mon, 21 Aug 2006 23:35:40 +0800sgforums.com:8:206254despondenthttp://sgforums.com/forums/8/topics/206254
Question of Origin<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Topic started by sinweiy on 25 Mar `13, 9:21AM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<h4><a href="http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html" rel=
"nofollow">http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html</a></h4>
<h4>Q: Interest im the discoveries of modern astrophysics and the
"Big bang" theory reveal both a great fascination in the cosmos and
a probing interrogation by members of our generation into their
origins, their destiny and the meaning of their existence. The "Big
bang" theory has had a significant impact on our way of looking at
matter and nature; it has introduced considerable conceptual
innovations. The formation of the structures of the universe, which
function in interdependence, and which new research continues to
reveal, is a seemingly endless source of wonder. Like all spiritual
traditions, Buddhism conveys a cosmogonic myth. And yet Buddhism
rejects the idea of creation. Why?</h4>
<h4>Most Western scientists think that life and consciousness are a
magnificent result of the universe's material evolution, and yet
they know neither how nor why matter emerged in such a way as to
fulfill the conditions necessary to engender life and
consciousness. What they do know is that these conditions are very
strict, yet have nevertheless been fulfilled in our universe in an
astonishing way. You have a very different point of view on this
subject. Would you therefore speak to us about consciousness in its
relation to matter and the universe?</h4>
<p><strong>A:</strong> Why is there no creation possible in
Buddhism? It has been said that one cannot find living beings at
the becoming of the universe for the essential reason that causes
have no beginning. If there were a beginning to the universe, there
would also have to be a beginning to consciousness. If we accepted
a beginning to consciousness, we would also have to accept that its
cause has a beginning, a sudden cause which would have instantly
produced consciousness; this would lead to a great many other
questions. If consciousness had arisen without cause, or from a
permanent cause, that cause would have to exist on. a permanent
basis, always, or not exist at all, ever. The fact that a
phenomenon exists intermittently proves that it depends on causes
and conditions. When all the conditions are met, the phenomenon is
produced. When those conditions are absent or incomplete, the
phenomenon does not appear. As causes have no beginning and stretch
back to infinity, the same thing must apply for living beings.
Creation is therefore not possible.</p>
<p>Let us now consider a particular phenomenon, a glacier for
example: it does indeed have a beginning. How was it created? The
outside world appears as a result of the acts of sentient beings
who use this world, These acts, or karmas, in turn originate in the
intentions and motivations of those beings who have not yet taken
control of their minds.</p>
<p>The "creator of the world," basically, is the mind. In the
Sutras, the mind is described as an agent. It is said that
consciousness has no beginning, but we must distinguish here
between gross consciousness and subtle consciousness. Many gross
consciousnesses appear as dependents of the physical aggregates, of
the body. This is evident when you consider the different neurons
and the functioning of the brain, but just because physical
conditions are met does not mean that this is enough to produce a
perception. In order for a perception which will have the faculty
to reflect and know an object to arise, it must have a
consubstantial cause. The fundamental consubstantial cause, of the
same substance as its result, will in this case be the subtle
consciousness. It is this same consciousness or subtle mind which
penetrates the parental cells at the moment of conception. The
subtle mind can have no beginning. If it had one, the mind would
have to be born of something that is not the mind. According to the
Kalacakra Tantra, one would have to return to the particles of
space to find the fundamental consubstantial causes of the external
physical world as well as of the bodies of sentient beings.</p>
<p>Buddhist cosmology establishes the cycle of a universe in the
following way: first there is a period of formation, then a period
where the universe endures, then another during which it is
destroyed, followed by a period of void before the formation of a
new universe. During this void, the particles of space subsist, and
from these particles the new universe will be formed. It is in
these particles of space that we find the fundamental
consubstantial cause of the entire physical world. If we wish to
describe the formation of the universe and the physical bodies of
beings, all we need do is analyse and comprehend the way in which
the natural potential of different chemical and other elements
constituting that universe was able to take shape from these space
particles. It is on the basis of the specific potential of those
particles that the structure of this universe and of the bodies of
the beings present therein have come about. But from the moment the
elements making up the world begin to set off different experiences
of suffering and happiness among sentient beings, we must introduce
the notion of karma -- that is, positive and negative acts
committed and accumulated in the past. It is difficult to determine
where the natural expression of the potential of physical elements
ends and the effect of karma -- in other words, the result of our
past acts -- begins. If you wonder what the relation might be
between karma and this external environment formed by natural laws,
it is time to explain what karma is.</p>
<p>Karma means, first of all, action. We distinguish one type of
karma which is of a mental nature, a mental factor of volition or
intention. There also exist physical and oral karmas. To understand
the connection between these physical, oral, or mental karmas and
the material world, we must refer to the tantric texts. The
Kalacakra Tantra in particular explains that in our bodies there
are to be found, at gross, subtle, and extremely subtle levels, the
five elements which make up the substance of the external world. It
is therefore in this context, I believe, that we must envision the
connection between our physical, oral, and mental karmas, and the
external elements.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>----------------------------</p>
<p>i think it is like asking, the origin of you in your dream.
inside your dream, there's no origin or first cause of you. you
simply pop into the dream because of wandering thoughts(aka
thinking too much). when one realised everything is a dream, you
will be the Awakened One.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>in reply to</p>
<blockquote>
<div class="quote_from">Originally posted by BroInChrist:</div>
<div class="quote_body">
<p>If so, then basically you are saying that all things and beings
are eternal since all they do is go through countless rebirths. Yet
such a notion is highly problematic!</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>/\</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Last reply by An Eternal Now on 08 Apr `13, 11:52AM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<blockquote>
<div class="quote_from">Originally posted by sinweiy:</div>
<div class="quote_body">
<p><br />
actually, there's no Hinduism&nbsp;but&nbsp;got <a href=
"/wiki/Confucianism" rel="nofollow" title=
"Confucianism"><span style=
"color: #000000;">Confucianism</span></a>. that time i also find it
funny. if u want to combine all religion, why leave out one major
religion Hinduism?.</p>
<p>ref:</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-Kuan_Tao" rel=
"nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-Kuan_Tao</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Because there's no Hindus in Taiwan or China. lol</p>
</div>
</div>
Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:21:47 +0800sgforums.com:1728:467480sinweiyhttp://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/467480
What are '' Friends '' means to YOU?<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Topic started by thelady on 26 Sep `12, 6:57PM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>Friends are people who support your life from the beginning and
through the end, non-judgmentally and with your best interests at
heart. They're sounding boards, guides and shoulders to lean on.
There are times when, for one reason or other, we lack friends. For
some people this is a choice, and not a problem at all; many
people, however, struggle with this situation.</p>
<p>Perhaps you've moved away from existing friends or perhaps there
are transitions within your usual group of friends that have left
you on the outer. Sometimes our lifestyle loses us friends, such as
when we marry, have children or focus intently on careers. Whatever
the reason, living without friends can leave people who crave
companionship feeling sad, weary and quite alone. Learning to live
through a period of life without friends requires trust in
yourself, a willingness to keep reaching out and a certainty that
this is a phase in your life, and that some day soon, the friends
you desire will grace your doorstep again.</p>
<p>Can people really cope without friends whether in school / work
?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by Summer hill on 10 Feb `13, 6:39PM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p><img src=
"http://25.media.tumblr.com/cfd5a6da3faa6f5d376f371d1eca40f7/tumblr_mhzdppKDbs1s2grm0o1_500.gif"
alt="" /></p>
<p>i shared GIFs with them.</p>
<p><img src=
"http://25.media.tumblr.com/4532296eda80c6a1ebbcb6b55ffb3783/tumblr_mhz8uiqNNj1rk2pvio1_500.gif"
alt="" /></p>
</div>
</div>
Wed, 26 Sep 2012 18:57:52 +0800sgforums.com:8:459221theladyhttp://sgforums.com/forums/8/topics/459221
The Problem of Evil?<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Topic started by Hardcore Atheist on 01 Aug `12, 5:34PM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>As you can see I am an agnostic atheist... although I consider
myself kind of hardcore, since I feel that having a creator is
unlikely.</p>
<p>First of all I am not writing this thread to offend, but as a
question for Christians or any other theists alike.</p>
<p>This is a quote made by Epicurus, an ancient Greek
philosopher.</p>
<p><span style=
"color: #181818; font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">
&nbsp;"</span>Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he
is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is
malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"</p>
<p>As you can see from this quote, this shows that God is either
lacking in omnibenevolence or omnipotence, or both.</p>
<p>Some theists would like to refute this point by saying that we
have sinned and misused the free will God had given us, thus evil
happens, or something of that kind.</p>
<p>The fallacy in the above sentence, however, is apparent when you
think about it. God is he all-knowing and all-powerful being right?
Now if he knows what you think, and he knows the future, do we have
free will actually? So did Adam have free will, or did God already
know that Satan would tempt Adam to eat the fruit?</p>
<p>Some theists might call this God's test of faith. However, if
God already knows what you want, or what you will do, then is the
test of faith not necessary at all? If so, then why did God went to
the extent of blaming Adam for something that He knew Adam would
do? Why would he create Satan?</p>
<p>Food for thought.</p>
<p>Now if this has offended any of you, I would like to say I am
sorry. I know science cannot necessarily disprove or prove God, but
it shows that many wonders of nature can be done naturally, and
without the aid of a creator. Hence I have decided to use the
philosophical problem of evil.&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Last reply by troublemaker2005 on 03 Dec `12, 4:23PM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>are you evil? only the devil undersatnds the problem of evil.
ptherwsie stop talkin rot and get a life.</p>
</div>
</div>
Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:34:49 +0800sgforums.com:1381:456547Hardcore Atheisthttp://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/456547
who created God<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Topic started by despondent on 10 Jul `12, 1:36PM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>a valid qn or a flawed qn? it boils down to whether God is
perceived as finite or infinite...before anyone can determine if
this qn is valid or flawed, depends on the perception of God...</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by lce on 01 Oct `12, 2:09PM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<blockquote>
<div class="quote_from">Originally posted by BroInChrist:</div>
<div class="quote_body">
<p>But there is no real literal&nbsp;death anywhere in this
parable, perhaps only the "death" of wrong beliefs? But how sad to
wait until one is dead to know for sure that there is life after
death. The Bible teaches that it is appointed for man to die ONCE
and after that to face judgement. There is no reincarnation and no
second chance. We have one short life to make a decision for
eternity.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br />
走火入魔</p>
</div>
</div>
Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:36:47 +0800sgforums.com:4245:455412despondenthttp://sgforums.com/forums/4245/topics/455412
Weird Friend<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Topic started by ISTARI on 12 Jun `12, 3:12AM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>Hey, i have this friend of mine who is a guy. So basically he
has a pretty gf lah. So, guys being guys naturally have guy friends
right? But this friend of mine never speaks or have guy friends. He
will basically have 1 friend which is his GF, i find this behavior
weird, anti- social. Do u have friends like this? Why does a person
become like this?&nbsp;</p>
<p>First, its nt like i care whether he talks to anyone lah, i just
think its strange. Its not a human behavior. Is there something
wrong up there?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Last reply by troublemaker2005 on 06 Aug `12, 8:55PM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>yep, its made of paper</p>
</div>
</div>
Tue, 12 Jun 2012 03:12:51 +0800sgforums.com:12:453859ISTARIhttp://sgforums.com/forums/12/topics/453859
The case for the 1st cause<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Topic started by despondent on 12 Jul `12, 11:44AM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>everyone acknowledges tat the universe came into existence by
some apparent reason...in other words, there is a 1st cause to the
universe...this thread discusses our views on wad the 1st cause is
and&nbsp;why its the 1st cause and not sth else...the 2 most common
camps are 1) the creator God and 2) the big bang...</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by BroInChrist on 05 Aug `12, 12:34AM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<blockquote>
<div class="quote_from">Originally posted by Joe 328:</div>
<div class="quote_body">
<p>Noted.</p>
<p>I am taught and learned not to take even a Man of God's word
just like that. Although I can learn much from them, it should not
be a final and must be cross-checked.</p>
<p>Even Martin Luther made mistakes. His late-life rant on Jews
(anti-semitism) was a result of his growing frustrations on his
inability to convert the Jews who kept rejecting Luther's
revelations. Also his revelation of law vs. grace gave him such an
aversion to the Torah (1st 5 books), he attempted to appeal to take
the book of Hebrews and the book of James out of the canon.</p>
<p>That said, I'll check up and do a study on Norman Geisler and
his work more.</p>
<p>Any works of his you particularly recommend?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Check out my book recommendation thread, Bro Joe. I have some
good books by him. Noteworthy is his Encyclopedia of Christian
Apologetics and his four volume Systematic Theology.</p>
</div>
</div>
Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:44:03 +0800sgforums.com:4245:455542despondenthttp://sgforums.com/forums/4245/topics/455542
Dinosaurs Death Pose: Evidence for Noah's Flood?<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Topic started by BroInChrist on 24 Jul `12, 11:09AM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>What do these pictures below have in common?</p>
<p><img src=
"http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn21207/dn21207-1_300.jpg"
alt="" /></p>
<p><img height="300" src=
"http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/files/2009/05/gorgosaurus_death_pose-294x300.jpg"
width="294" alt="" /></p>
<p><img height="640" src=
"http://huehueteotl.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/archaeopteryx.jpg"
width="480" alt="" /></p>
<p class="">According to the NEW SCIENTIST (see <a href=
"http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21207-watery-secret-of-the-dinosaur-death-pose.html"
rel=
"nofollow">http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21207-watery-secret-of-the-dinosaur-death-pose.html</a>)
when palaeontologists are lucky enough to find a complete dinosaur
skeleton – whether it be a tiny <a href=
"http://sgforums.com/article/mg20527454.000-feathered-dinosaurs-show-their-true-colours.html"
rel="nofollow"><em><span style=
"text-decoration: underline;"><span style=
"color: #0066cc;">Sinosauropteryx</span></span></em></a> or an
enormous <a href=
"http://sgforums.com/article/mg20127001.400-how-the-largest-dinosaurs-got-so-big.html"
rel="nofollow"><em><span style=
"text-decoration: underline;"><span style=
"color: #0066cc;">Apatosaurus</span></span></em></a> – there's a
good chance it will be found with its <a href=
"http://sgforums.com/article/mg19626352.500-the-big-sleep-how-dinosaurs-die.html"
rel="nofollow"><span style=
"text-decoration: underline;"><span style="color: #0066cc;">head
thrown backwards and its tail arched upwards</span></span></a> –
technically known as the opisthotonic death pose.
<strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">No one is
entirely sure why this posture is so common</span></strong>, but
Alicia Cutler and colleagues from Brigham Young University in
Provo, Utah, think it all comes down to a dip in the wet stuff.
"Although the roads to the opisthotonic death pose are many,
<strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">immersion in
water is the simplest explanation</span></strong>."</p>
<p class="">I think the secular scientists are on to something
here, but whether they will consider the effects of a global flood
is another thing. But while this cannot be used to prove that there
was a global flood I think it is consistent with the belief that
there was a global flood. See also <a href=
"http://creation.com/death-throes" rel=
"nofollow">http://creation.com/death-throes</a></p>
<p class="">&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by Aneslayer on 31 Jul `12, 12:04PM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<blockquote>
<div class="quote_from">Originally posted by BroInChrist:</div>
<div class="quote_body">
<p>Genetic fallacy spotted.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Proven by your current lack of understanding of the subject, not
by your origin. Learnurfallacies right... *facepalm*</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy" rel=
"nofollow" style="" title="Genetic fallacy">Genetic
fallacy</a><span style="">&nbsp;– where a conclusion is suggested
based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its
current meaning or context.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:09:08 +0800sgforums.com:2173:456108BroInChristhttp://sgforums.com/forums/2173/topics/456108
How to Refute Christianity - A Handy Guide<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Topic started by BroInChrist on 25 Jul `12, 2:45AM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>The following is taken from <a href=
"http://standtherefore.com/blog/how-to-refute-christianity-a-handy-guide"
rel=
"nofollow">http://standtherefore.com/blog/how-to-refute-christianity-a-handy-guide</a></p>
<p>The Bible makes many claims that can be scientifically and
philosophically tested – and if these claims are falsified,
Christianity will crumble. So here is a handy guide I’ve developed
for those who would like to refute Christianity.</p>
<p>This guide highlights the major testable Christian beliefs and
provides suggestions on how the skeptic should go about the
refutation process.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Step 1:&nbsp;Falsify
the&nbsp;First Law of Thermodynamics</span></h2>
<p><span style="color: #333333;">Christians hold to the doctrine of
creation <em>ex nihilo</em> which says that
God&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #333333;">created the
universe&nbsp;out of nothing (Genesis 1). The First Law of
Thermodynamics (or the Conservation of Matter &amp; Energy) seems
to verify this doctrine when it says, “energy (and matter) cannot
be created by natural processes”.</span> <span style=
"color: #333333;">Dr. Walter Brown characterizes the Christian
position from a physicists prospective:</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="color: #808080;">A
corollary of the first law [of Thermodynamics]&nbsp;is that natural
processes cannot create energy. Therefore, energy must have been
created in the past by some agency or power outside and independent
of the natural universe.”<sup><a href=
"http://standtherefore.com/blog/how-to-refute-christianity-a-handy-guide/#footnote_0_3164"
rel="nofollow" class="" title=
"Brown, Walter T. &amp;amp;#8220;Part I, Astronomical and Physical Sciences, 54.&amp;amp;#8221; In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. 8th ed. Phoenix, Az.: Center for Scientific Creation, 2008. Print">1</a></sup></span></p>
<p>However if energy can be shown to originate through purely
natural causes, then the need for a <em>transcendent</em> cause
would be effectively&nbsp;eliminated.&nbsp;This would severely
jeopardize the creation account found in Genesis 1.</p>
<p><strong>Suggestion:</strong> As you know, the standard model of
the Big Bang theory strongly supports creation <em>ex nihilo -</em>
that is exactly what the Big Bang proposes.
Therefore&nbsp;you&nbsp;should focus&nbsp;your efforts on creating
new models for the beginning of the universe. Specifically
ones&nbsp;that exhibit the ability of natural processes to produce
energy. Note however, that theories such as inflation and
multi-verse are not detrimental to Christianity because they
<em>presuppose</em> the existence&nbsp;of energy (see&nbsp;<a href=
"http://standtherefore.com/blog/a-quantum-merry-go-round/" rel=
"nofollow" title="A Quantum Merry-Go-Round">A Quantum
Merry-Go-Round</a>).</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Step 2: &nbsp;Falsify
the Law of Biogenesis</span></h2>
<p>Christians believe that God is the giver of life (<a href=
"http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Genesis%202.7" rel="nofollow" class=
"">Genesis 2:7</a>).&nbsp;This doctrine&nbsp;is supported by the
Law of Biogenesis which says that <em>natural</em> processes could
not have created life. Nobel Prize winning Atheist, George
Wald&nbsp;explained the Atheistic dilemma:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&nbsp;<span style=
"font-size: medium;">“</span><span style="color: #808080;">There
are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous
generation arising to evolution; the other&nbsp;is a supernatural
creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous
generation, that life arose from non-living matter was
scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others.
That leaves us with the only&nbsp;</span><span style=
"color: #808080;">possible conclusion that life arose as a
supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that
philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore,
I choose to believe in that which I know is
scientifically&nbsp;impossible; spontaneous generation arising to
evolution.<span style="font-size: medium;">”<sup><a href=
"http://standtherefore.com/blog/how-to-refute-christianity-a-handy-guide/#footnote_1_3164"
rel="nofollow" class="" title=
"((Wald, G. 1954. The Origin of Life. Scientific American August: 44-53">2</a></sup></span></span></p>
<p><span style="color: #333333;">However the Christian position can
be falsified if life can be shown to arise from non-life by
unguided natural processes.<br /></span></p>
<p><strong>Suggestion:</strong> Focus your efforts
on&nbsp;developing a&nbsp;sound model for chemical
evolution.&nbsp;This model must explain the unguided,
natural&nbsp;organization of chemicals to amino acids, amino acids
to proteins and proteins to a&nbsp;<em>living</em>
cell.&nbsp;Atheist, Paul Davies admits:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style=
"color: #808080;">“Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals
spontaneously organized themselves into the first living
cell.”</span><sup><a href=
"http://standtherefore.com/blog/how-to-refute-christianity-a-handy-guide/#footnote_2_3164"
rel="nofollow" class="" title=
"Davies, Paul, Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Sydney, New Scientist 179(2403):32, 2003">3</a></sup></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Step 3:&nbsp;Overhaul
Information Science&nbsp;</span></h2>
<p>Genetic information (DNA) is a biological blueprint that codes
for the development and functionality of all known organisms.
However no known natural process has ever been observed to give
rise to biological information. Dr. Stephen Meyer explains:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="color: #808080;">“…no
purely undirected physical or chemical process – whether those
based upon chance, law-like necessity, or the combination of the
two – has provided an adequate causal explanation for the ultimate
origin of the functionality specified biological
information..”<sup><a href=
"http://standtherefore.com/blog/how-to-refute-christianity-a-handy-guide/#footnote_3_3164"
rel="nofollow" class="" title=
"Evolution News &amp;amp;amp; Views. Web. 02 Apr. 2012. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/of_molecules_and_straw_men_a_r051601.html.">4</a></sup></span></p>
<p>In the absence of any evidence for the natural generation of
genetic information, the Christian position stands supported.
However if genetic information can be shown to arise from purely
natural processes then the need for a mind would be eliminated.</p>
<p><strong>Suggestion:</strong> Provide evidence of inorganic
matter creating&nbsp;genetic information via unguided physical
processes……</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Step 4: Disprove the
Existence of Jesus</span></h2>
<p>Christians believe that Jesus was the very Messiah prophesied of
in the Old Testament. Consequently Jesus is believed to be God –
the second Person of the Trinity (<a href=
"http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Titus%202.13" rel="nofollow" class=
"">Titus 2:13</a>). If it can be shown however, that Jesus of
Nazareth never actually existed, then Christianity would collapse
in despair.</p>
<p>Of course this task would&nbsp;require an explanation as to why
Jesus is mentioned as a real&nbsp;person by&nbsp;a number
of&nbsp;ancient authors&nbsp;including: Pliny the Younger, Tacitus,
Suetonius, Mara bar Serapion, Thallus, Lucian, Celsus, Clement of
Rome and Polycarp. Also explanation must be given as to why Jesus
is mentioned in the&nbsp;extra-biblical Gospels including, The
Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter and The Gospel of Judas – the
same follows for the canonical Gospels and Epistles.</p>
<p><strong>Suggestion</strong><strong>:</strong> Do
not&nbsp;attempt to disprove the&nbsp;existence&nbsp;of Jesus –
it’s&nbsp;a waste of time.&nbsp;There are too many ancient
documents that speak of Him as a real person in history.</p>
<h2><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Step 5: Discover
the&nbsp;Body of Jesus</span></h2>
<p>Game over.&nbsp;</p>
<h2><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Step 6: Challenge
Natural Theology</span></h2>
<p><a href=
"http://standtherefore.com/blog/natural-theology-what-is-it/" rel=
"nofollow" title="Introduction to Natural Theology">Natural
Theology</a>&nbsp;is the philosophical and scientific practice of
developing arguments for the existence of God based upon things
that are empirically verifiable. These arguments have become
extremely sophisticated in every area&nbsp;they touch.</p>
<p><strong>Suggestion:</strong> Focus on refuting the arguments in
<a href=
"http://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Companion-Theology-Companions-Philosophy/dp/1444350854/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1333474564&amp;amp;sr=8-1"
rel="nofollow">The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology</a>. If
you succeed, you will have eliminated arguments from Christianity’s
foremost defenders.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<hr />
<ol class="">
<li class="">Brown, Walter T. “Part I, Astronomical and Physical
Sciences, 54.” <em>In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for
Creation and the Flood</em>. 8th ed. Phoenix, Az.: Center for
Scientific Creation, 2008. Print [<a href=
"http://standtherefore.com/blog/how-to-refute-christianity-a-handy-guide/#identifier_0_3164"
rel="nofollow" class="">↩</a>]</li>
<li class="">((Wald, G. 1954. The Origin of Life. <cite>Scientific
American</cite> August: 44-53 [<a href=
"http://standtherefore.com/blog/how-to-refute-christianity-a-handy-guide/#identifier_1_3164"
rel="nofollow" class="">↩</a>]</li>
<li class="">Davies, Paul, Australian Centre for Astrobiology,
Sydney, <em>New Scientist</em> <strong>179</strong>(2403):32, 2003
[<a href=
"http://standtherefore.com/blog/how-to-refute-christianity-a-handy-guide/#identifier_2_3164"
rel="nofollow" class="">↩</a>]</li>
<li class=""><em>Evolution News &amp; Views</em>. Web. 02 Apr.
2012. <a href=
"http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/of_molecules_and_straw_men_a_r051601.html"
rel=
"nofollow">http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/of_molecules_and_straw_men_a_r051601.html</a>.
[<a href=
"http://standtherefore.com/blog/how-to-refute-christianity-a-handy-guide/#identifier_3_3164"
rel="nofollow" class="">↩</a>]</li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by despondent on 27 Jul `12, 3:14PM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>If God is uncreated, purely wow!</p>
<p>How abt if infinity cannot be valued, purely wow?</p>
</div>
</div>
Wed, 25 Jul 2012 02:45:07 +0800sgforums.com:4245:456159BroInChristhttp://sgforums.com/forums/4245/topics/456159
Has Physics Made Philosophy and Religion Obsolete?<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Topic started by Jacky Woo on 14 Jul `12, 12:49AM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p><em>"I think at some point you need to provoke people. Science
is meant to make people uncomfortable."</em></p>
<p><img height="358" src=
"http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/ChalkBoard01.JPG"
width="615" alt="" /></p>
<div>It is hard to know how our future descendants will regard the
little sliver of history that we live in. It is hard to know what
events will seem important to them, what the narrative of now will
look like to the twenty-fifth century mind. We tend to think of our
time as one uniquely shaped by the advance of technology, but more
and more I suspect that this will be remembered as an age of
<em>cosmology</em>---as the moment when the human mind first
internalized the cosmos that gave rise to it. Over the past
century, since the discovery that our universe is expanding,
science has quietly begun to sketch the structure of the entire
cosmos, extending its explanatory powers across a hundred billion
galaxies, to the dawn of space and time itself. It is breathtaking
to consider how quickly we have come to understand the basics of
everything from star formation to galaxy formation to <em>universe
formation</em>. And now, equipped with the predictive power of
quantum physics, theoretical physicists are beginning to push even
further, into new universes and new physics, into controversies
once thought to be squarely within the domain of theology or
philosophy.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>In January, Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist and
Director of the Origins Institute at Arizona State University,
published <em><a href=
"http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/145162445X"
rel="nofollow"><span style=
"text-decoration: underline;"><span style="color: #0066cc;">A
Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than
Nothing</span></span></a></em>, a book that, as its title suggests,
purports to explain how something---and not just any something, but
the entire universe---could have emerged from nothing, the kind of
nothing implicated by quantum field theory. But before attempting
to do so, the book first tells the story of modern cosmology,
whipping its way through the big bang to microwave background
radiation and the discovery of dark energy. It's a story that
Krauss is well positioned to tell; in recent years he has emerged
as an unusually gifted explainer of astrophysics. One of his
lectures has been viewed over a million times on <a href=
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo" rel=
"nofollow"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style=
"color: #0066cc;">YouTube</span></span></a> and his cultural reach
extends to some unlikely places---last year Miley Cyrus came under
fire when she <a href=
"https://twitter.com/#%21/MileyCyrus/status/175326502718676992"
rel="nofollow"><span style=
"text-decoration: underline;"><span style="color: #0066cc;">tweeted
a quote</span></span></a> from Krauss that some Christians found
offensive. Krauss' book quickly became a bestseller, drawing raves
from popular atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, the
latter of which even compared it to <em>The Origin of Species</em>
for the way its final chapters were supposed to finally upend the
"last trump card of the theologian."</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>By early spring, media coverage of "A Universe From Nothing"
seemed to have run its course, but then on March 23rd the New York
Times ran <a href=
"http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html"
rel="nofollow"><span style=
"text-decoration: underline;"><span style="color: #0066cc;">a
blistering review</span></span></a> of the book, written by David
Albert, a philosopher of physics from Columbia University. Albert,
who has a PhD in theoretical physics, argued that Krauss' "nothing"
was in fact a something and did so in uncompromising terms:</div>
<div><br /></div>
<blockquote style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;">
<div>
<div>"The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical
stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of
relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of
relativistic quantum fields... they have nothing whatsoever to say
on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world
should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or
of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there
should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed.
End of story."</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>Because the story of modern cosmology has such deep
implications for the way that we humans see ourselves and the
universe, it must be told correctly and without exaggeration---in
the classroom, in the press and in works of popular science. To see
two academics, both versed in theoretical physics, disagreeing so
intensely on such a fundamental point is troubling. Not because
scientists shouldn't disagree with each other, but because here
they're disagreeing about a claim being disseminated to the public
as a legitimate scientific discovery. Readers of popular science
often assume that what they're reading is backed by a strong
consensus. Having recently interviewed Krauss for a different
project, I reached out to him to see if he was interested in
discussing Albert's criticisms with me. He said that he was, and
mentioned that he would be traveling to New York on April 20th to
speak at a memorial service for Christopher Hitchens. As it
happened, I was also due to be in New York that weekend and so,
last Friday, we were able to sit down for the extensive, and at
times contentious, conversation that follows.</div>
</div>
<div><strong><br /></strong></div>
<div><strong>I know that you're just coming from Christopher
Hitchens' memorial service. How did that go?</strong></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Krauss:</strong> It was a remarkable event for a
remarkable man, and I felt very fortunate to be there. I was
invited to give the opening presentation in front of all of these
literary figures and dignitaries of various sorts, and so I began
the only way I think you can begin, and that's with music from
Monty Python. That got me over my initial stage fright and my
concern about what to say about someone as extraordinary as
Christopher. I was able to talk about a lot of the aspects of
Christopher that people may not know about, including the fact that
he was fascinated by science. And I also got to talk about what it
felt like to be his friend.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>I closed with an anecdote, a true story about the last time I
was with him. I was reading the New York Times at his kitchen
table, and there was an article about the ongoing effort to keep
Catholic students at elite colleges like Yale from losing their
faith. The article said something like "faced with Nietzsche, coed
dorms, Hitchens, and beer pong, students are likely to stray."
There are two really amazing aspects of that. For one, to be so
culturally ubiquitous that you can be mentioned in a sentence like
that without any further explanation is pretty exceptional. But
also to be sandwiched between "Nietzsche" and "beer pong" is an
honor that very few of us can ever aspire to.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>I want to start with a general question about the
relationship between philosophy and physics. There has been a fair
amount of sniping between these two disciplines over the past few
years. Why the sudden, public antagonism between philosophy and
physics?</strong></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Krauss:</strong> That's a good question. I expect it's
because physics has encroached on philosophy. Philosophy used to be
a field that had content, but then "natural philosophy" became
physics, and physics has only continued to make inroads. Every time
there's a leap in physics, it encroaches on these areas that
philosophers have carefully sequestered away to themselves, and so
then you have this natural resentment on the part of philosophers.
This sense that somehow physicists, because they can't spell the
word "philosophy," aren't justified in talking about these things,
or haven't thought deeply about them---</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Is that really a claim that you see
often?</strong></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Krauss:</strong> It is. Philosophy is a field that,
unfortunately, reminds me of that old Woody Allen joke, "those that
can't do, teach, and those that can't teach, teach gym." And the
worst part of philosophy is the philosophy of science; the only
people, as far as I can tell, that read work by philosophers of
science are other philosophers of science. It has no impact on
physics what so ever, and I doubt that other philosophers read it
because it's fairly technical. And so it's really hard to
understand what justifies it. And so I'd say that this tension
occurs because people in philosophy feel threatened, and they have
every right to feel threatened, because science progresses and
philosophy doesn't.</div>
<div><img height="363" src=
"http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/KraussLawrence_4177.JPG"
width="615" alt="" /></div>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<div><strong>On that note, you were recently quoted as saying that
philosophy "hasn't progressed in two thousand years." But computer
science, particularly research into artificial intelligence was to
a large degree built on foundational work done by philosophers in
logic and other formal languages. And certainly philosophers like
John Rawls have been immensely influential in fields like political
science and public policy. Do you view those as legitimate
achievements?</strong></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Krauss:</strong> Well, yeah, I mean, look I was being
provocative, as I tend to do every now and then in order to get
people's attention. There are areas of philosophy that are
important, but I think of them as being subsumed by other fields.
In the case of descriptive philosophy you have literature or logic,
which in my view is really mathematics. Formal logic is
mathematics, and there are philosophers like Wittgenstein that are
very mathematical, but what they're really doing is
mathematics---it's not talking about things that have affected
computer science, it's mathematical logic. And again, I think of
the interesting work in philosophy as being subsumed by other
disciplines like history, literature, and to some extent political
science insofar as ethics can be said to fall under that heading.
To me what philosophy does best is reflect on knowledge that's
generated in other areas.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>I'm not sure that's right. I think that in some cases
philosophy actually generates new fields. Computer science is a
perfect example. Certainly philosophical work in logic can be said
to have been subsumed by computer science, but subsumed might be
the wrong word---</strong></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Krauss:</strong> Well, you name me the philosophers
that did key work for computer science; I think of John Von Neumann
and other mathematicians, and---</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>But Bertrand Russell paved the way for Von
Neumann.</strong></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Krauss:</strong> But Bertrand Russell was a
mathematician. I mean, he was a philosopher too and he was
interested in the philosophical foundations of mathematics, but by
the way, when he wrote about the philosophical foundations of
mathematics, what did he do? He got it wrong.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>But Einstein got it wrong, too---</strong></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Krauss:</strong> Sure, but the difference is that
scientists are really happy when they get it wrong, because it
means that there's more to learn. And look, one can play semantic
games, but I think that if you look at the people whose work really
pushed the computer revolution from Turing to Von Neumann and,
you're right, Bertrand Russell in some general way, I think you'll
find it's the mathematicians who had the big impact. And logic can
certainly be claimed to be a part of philosophy, but to me the
content of logic is mathematical.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Do you find this same tension between theoretical and
empirical physics?</strong></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Krauss:</strong> Sometimes, but it shouldn't be there.
Physics is an empirical science. As a theoretical physicist I can
tell you that I recognize that it's the experiment that drives the
field, and it's very rare to have it go the other way; Einstein is
of course the obvious exception, but even he was guided by
observation. It's usually the universe that's surprising us, not
the other way around.</div>
<blockquote class="">
<p>"It's usually the universe that's surpising us, not the other
way around."</p>
</blockquote>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Moving on to your book "A Universe From Nothing," what
did you hope to accomplish when you set out to write
it?</strong></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Krauss:</strong> Every time I write a book, I try and
think of a hook. People are interested in science, but they don't
always know they're interested in science, and so I try to find a
way to get them interested. Teaching and writing, to me, is really
just seduction; you go to where people are and you find something
that they're interested in and you try and use that to convince
them that they should be interested in what you have to say.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>The religious question "why is there something rather than
nothing," has been around since people have been around, and now
we're actually reaching a point where science is beginning to
address that question. And so I figured I could use that question
as a way to celebrate the revolutionary changes that we've achieved
in refining our picture of the universe. I didn't write the book to
attack religion, per se. The purpose of the book is to point out
all of these amazing things that we now know about the universe.
Reading some of the reactions to the book, it seems like you
automatically become strident the minute you try to explain
something naturally.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>Richard Dawkins wrote the afterword for the book---and I
thought it was pretentious at the time, but I just decided to go
with it---where he compares the book to The Origin of Species. And
of course as a scientific work it doesn't some close to The Origin
of Species, which is one of the greatest scientific works ever
produced. And I say that as a physicist; I've often argued that
Darwin was a greater scientist than Einstein. But there is one
similarity between my book and Darwin's---before Darwin life was a
miracle; every aspect of life was a miracle, every species was
designed, etc. And then what Darwin showed was that simple laws
could, in principle, plausibly explain the incredible diversity of
life. And while we don't yet know the ultimate origin of life, for
most people it's plausible that at some point chemistry became
biology. What's amazing to me is that we're now at a point where we
can plausibly argue that a universe full of stuff came from a very
simple beginning, the simplest of all beginnings: nothing. That's
been driven by profound revolutions in our understanding of the
universe, and that seemed to me to be something worth celebrating,
and so what I wanted to do was use this question to get people to
face this remarkable universe that we live in.</div>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<div><strong>Your book argues that physics has definitively
demonstrated how something can come from nothing. Do you mean that
physics has explained how particles can emerge from so-called empty
space, or are you making a deeper claim?</strong></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Krauss:</strong> I'm making a deeper claim, but at the
same time I think you're overstating what I argued. I don't think I
argued that physics has definitively shown how something could come
from nothing; physics has shown how plausible physical mechanisms
might cause this to happen. I try to be intellectually honest in
everything that I write, especially about what we know and what we
don't know. If you're writing for the public, the one thing you
can't do is overstate your claim, because people are going to
believe you. They see I'm a physicist and so if I say that protons
are little pink elephants, people might believe me. And so I try to
be very careful and responsible. We don't know how something can
come from nothing, but we do know some plausible ways that it
might.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>But I am certainly claiming a lot more than just that. That
it's possible to create particles from no particles is
remarkable---that you can do that with impunity, without violating
the conservation of energy and all that, is a remarkable thing. The
fact that "nothing," namely empty space, is unstable is amazing.
But I'll be the first to say that empty space as I'm describing it
isn't necessarily nothing, although I will add that it was plenty
good enough for Augustine and the people who wrote the Bible. For
them an eternal empty void was the definition of nothing, and
certainly I show that that kind of nothing ain't nothing
anymore.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>But debating physics with Augustine might not be an
interesting thing to do in 2012.</strong></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Krauss:</strong> It might be more interesting than
debating some of the moronic philosophers that have written about
my book. Given what we know about quantum gravity, or what we
presume about quantum gravity, we know you can create space from
where there was no space. And so you've got a situation where there
were no particles in space, but also there was no space. That's a
lot closer to "nothing."</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>But of course then people say that's not "nothing," because
you can create something from it. They ask, justifiably, where the
laws come from. And the last part of the book argues that we've
been driven to this notion---a notion that I don't like---that the
laws of physics themselves could be an environmental accident. On
that theory, physics itself becomes an environmental science, and
the laws of physics come into being when the universe comes into
being. And to me that's the last nail in the coffin for
"nothingness."</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>It sounds like you're arguing that 'nothing' is really
a quantum vacuum, and that a quantum vacuum is unstable in such a
way as to make the production of matter and space inevitable. But a
quantum vacuum has properties. For one, it is subject to the
equations of quantum field theory. Why should we think of it as
nothing?</strong></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Krauss:</strong> That would be a legitimate argument
if that were all I was arguing. By the way it's a nebulous term to
say that something is a quantum vacuum in this way. That's another
term that these theologians and philosophers have started using
because they don't know what the hell it is, but it makes them
sound like they know what they're talking about. When I talk about
empty space, I am talking about a quantum vacuum, but when I'm
talking about no space whatsoever, I don't see how you can call it
a quantum vacuum. It's true that I'm applying the laws of quantum
mechanics to it, but I'm applying it to nothing, to literally
nothing. No space, no time, nothing. There may have been meta-laws
that created it, but how you can call that universe that didn't
exist "something" is beyond me. When you go to the level of
creating space, you have to argue that if there was no space and no
time, there wasn't any pre-existing quantum vacuum. That's a later
stage.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>Even if you accept this argument that nothing is not nothing,
you have to acknowledge that nothing is being used in a
philosophical sense. But I don't really give a damn about what
"nothing" means to philosophers; I care about the "nothing" of
reality. And if the "nothing" of reality is full of stuff, then
I'll go with that.</div>
<blockquote class="">
<p>"But I don't really give a damn what "nothing" means to
philosophers; I care about the "nothing" of reality."</p>
</blockquote>
<div><br /></div>
<div>But I don't have to accept that argument, because space didn't
exist in the state I'm talking about, and of course then you'll say
that the laws of quantum mechanics existed, and that those are
something. But I don't know what laws existed then. In fact, most
of the laws of nature didn't exist before the universe was created;
they were created along with the universe, at least in the
multiverse picture. The forces of nature, the definition of
particles---all these things come into existence with the universe,
and in a different universe, different forces and different
particles might exist. We don't yet have the mathematics to
describe a multiverse, and so I don't know what laws are fixed. I
also don't have a quantum theory of gravity, so I can't tell you
for certain how space comes into existence, but to make the
argument that a quantum vacuum that has particles is the same as
one that doesn't have particles is to not understand field
theory.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>I'm not sure that anyone is arguing that they're the
same thing--</strong></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Krauss:</strong> Well, I read a moronic philosopher
who did a review of my book in the New York Times who somehow said
that having particles and no particles is the same thing, and it's
not. The quantum state of the universe can change and it's
dynamical. He didn't understand that when you apply quantum field
theory to a dynamic universe, things change and you can go from one
kind of vacuum to another. When you go from no particles to
particles, it means something.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>I think the problem for me, coming at this as a
layperson, is that when you're talking about the explanatory power
of science, for every stage where you have a "something,"---even if
it's just a wisp of something, or even just a set of laws---there
has to be a further question about the origins of that "something."
And so when I read the title of your book, I read it as "questions
about origins are over."</strong></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Krauss:</strong> Well, if that hook gets you into the
book that's great. But in all seriousness, I never make that claim.
In fact, in the preface I tried to be really clear that you can
keep asking "Why?" forever. At some level there might be ultimate
questions that we can't answer, but if we can answer the "How?"
questions, we should, because those are the questions that matter.
And it may just be an infinite set of questions, but what I point
out at the end of the book is that the multiverse may resolve all
of those questions. From Aristotle's prime mover to the Catholic
Church's first cause, we're always driven to the idea of something
eternal. If the multiverse really exists, then you could have an
infinite object---infinite in time and space as opposed to our
universe, which is finite. That may beg the question as to where
the multiverse came from, but if it's infinite, it's infinite. You
might not be able to answer that final question, and I try to be
honest about that in the book. But if you can show how a set of
physical mechanisms can bring about our universe, that itself is an
amazing thing and it's worth celebrating. I don't ever claim to
resolve that infinite regress of why-why-why-why-why; as far as I'm
concerned it's turtles all the way down. The multiverse could
explain it by being eternal, in the same way that God explains it
by being eternal, but there's a huge difference: the multiverse is
well motivated and God is just an invention of lazy minds.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>In the past you've spoken quite eloquently about the
Multiverse, this idea that our universe might be one of many
universes, perhaps an infinite number. In your view does
theoretical physics give a convincing account of how such a
structure could come to exist?</strong></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Krauss:</strong> In certain ways, yes---in other ways,
no. There are a variety of multiverses that people in physics talk
about. The most convincing one derives from something called
inflation, which we're pretty certain happened because it produces
effects that agree with almost everything we can observe. From what
we know about particle physics, it seems quite likely that the
universe underwent a period of exponential expansion early on. But
inflation, insofar as we understand it, never ends---it only ends
in certain regions and then those regions become a universe like
ours. You can show that in an inflationary universe, you produce a
multiverse, you produce an infinite number of causally separated
universes over time, and the laws of physics are different in each
one. There's a real mechanism where you can calculate it.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>And all of that comes, theoretically, from a very small region
of space that becomes infinitely large over time. There's a
calculable multiverse; it's almost required for inflation---it's
very hard to get around it. All the evidence suggests that our
universe resulted from a period of inflation, and it's strongly
suggestive that well beyond our horizon there are other universes
that are being created out of inflation, and that most of the
multiverse is still expanding exponentially.</div>
<div>
<div><strong>Is there an empirical frontier for this? How do we
observe a multiverse?</strong></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Krauss:</strong> Right. How do you tell that there's a
multiverse if the rest of the universes are outside your causal
horizon? It sounds like philosophy. At best. But imagine that we
had a fundamental particle theory that explained why there are
three generations of fundamental particles, and why the proton is
two thousand times heavier than the electron, and why there are
four forces of nature, etc. And it also predicted a period of
inflation in the early universe, and it predicts everything that we
see and you can follow it through the entire evolution of the early
universe to see how we got here. Such a theory might, in addition
to predicting everything we see, also predict a host of universes
that we don't see. If we had such a theory, the accurate
predictions it makes about what we can see would also make its
predictions about what we can't see extremely likely. And so I
could see empirical evidence internal to this universe validating
the existence of a multiverse, even if we could never see it
directly.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>You have said that your book is meant to describe "the
remarkable revolutions that have taken place in our understanding
of the universe over the past 50 years--revolutions that should be
celebrated as the pinnacle of our intellectual experience." I think
that's a worthy project and, like you, I find it lamentable that
some of physics' most extraordinary discoveries have yet to fully
penetrate our culture. But might it be possible to communicate the
beauty of those discoveries without tacking on an assault on
previous belief systems, especially when those belief systems
aren't necessarily scientific?</strong></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Krauss:</strong> Well, yes. I'm sympathetic to your
point in one sense, and I've had this debate with Richard Dawkins;
I've often said to him that if you want people to listen to you,
the best way is not to go up to them and say, "You're stupid."
Somehow it doesn't get through.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>It's a fine line and it's hard to tell where to fall on this
one. What drove me to write this book was this discovery that the
nature of "nothing" had changed, that we've discovered that
"nothing" is almost everything and that it has properties. That to
me is an amazing discovery. So how do I frame that? I frame it in
terms of this question about something coming from nothing. And
part of that is a reaction to these really pompous theologians who
say, "out of nothing, nothing comes," because those are just empty
words. I think at some point you need to provoke people. Science is
meant to make people uncomfortable. And whether I went too far on
one side or another of that line is an interesting question, but I
suspect that if I can get people to be upset about that issue, then
on some level I've raised awareness of it.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>The unfortunate aspect of it is, and I've come to realize this
recently, is that some people feel they don't even need to read the
book, because they think I've missed the point of the fundamental
theological question. But I suspect that those people weren't open
to it anyway. I think Steven Weinberg said it best when he said
that science doesn't make it impossible to believe in God, it just
makes it possible to not believe in God. That's a profoundly
important point, and to the extent that cosmology is bringing us to
a place where we can address those very questions, it's undoubtedly
going to make people uncomfortable. It was a judgment call on my
part and I can't go back on it, so it's hard to know.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>You've developed this wonderful ability to translate
difficult scientific concepts into language that can enlighten, and
even inspire a layperson. There are people in faith communities who
are genuinely curious about physics and cosmology, and your book
might be just the thing to quench and multiply that curiosity. But
I worry that by framing these discoveries in language that is in
some sense borrowed from the culture war, that you run the risk of
shrinking the potential audience for them---and that could
ultimately be a disservice to the ideas.</strong></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Krauss:</strong> Ultimately, it might be. I've gone to
these fundamentalist colleges and I've gone to Fox News and it's
interesting, the biggest impact I've ever had is when I said, "you
don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution." I've had
young kids come up to me and say that affected them deeply. So yes
it's nice to point that out, but I actually think that if you read
my book I never say that we know all the answers, I say that it's
pompous to say that we can't know the answers. And so yeah I think
that maybe there will be some people who are craving this stuff and
who won't pick up my book because of the way I've framed it, but at
the same time I do think that people need to be aware that they can
be brave enough to ask the question "Is it possible to understand
the universe without God?" And so you're right that I'm going to
lose some people, but I'm hoping that at the same time I'll gain
some people who are going to be brave enough to come out of the
closet and ask that question. And that's what amazes me, that
nowadays when you simply ask the question you're told that you're
offending people.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>But let me bring that back full circle. You opened
this conversation talking about seduction. You're not giving an
account of seduction right now.</strong></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div><strong>Krauss:</strong> That's true, but let me take it back
full circle to Hitchens. What Christopher had was charm, humor, wit
and culture as weapons against nonsense, and in my own small way
what I try and do in my books is exactly that. I try and infuse
them with humor and culture and that's the seduction part. And in
this case the seduction might be causing people to ask, "How can he
say that? How can he have the temerity to suggest that it's
possible to get something from nothing? Let me see what's wrong
with these arguments." If I'd just titled the book "A Marvelous
Universe," not as many people would have been attracted to it. But
it's hard to know. I'm acutely aware of this seduction problem, and
my hope is that what I can do is get people to listen long enough
to where I can show some of what's going on, and at the same time
make them laugh.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by BroInChrist on 25 Jul `12, 9:44AM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<blockquote>
<div class="quote_from">Originally posted by bycai:</div>
<div class="quote_body">
<p>Science is prob 400-500 years old that has developed alot of
concern and inconsideration on environmental impact. So if
<em>Science is meant to make people uncomfortable, dun u find
science too much of discomfort for earth. Physics has made mankind
obsolete for true relationship to happen for many years. The
inception of physic was orginally a kind genuine intent, but over
the decades, it may have gone abit out of focus, more prayer
need</em> <img src="/images/emoticons/classic/icon_mrgreen.gif"
alt="icon_mrgreen.gif" /></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Actually I think TS' post was more bordering on advocating
scientism, that "science" is the final arbiter and determiner of
truth and would bulldoze things like philosophy and religion.</p>
</div>
</div>
Sat, 14 Jul 2012 00:49:26 +0800sgforums.com:4245:455623Jacky Woohttp://sgforums.com/forums/4245/topics/455623
Using Bible to Prove Bible is Circular Reasoning?<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Topic started by BroInChrist on 14 Jul `12, 11:16AM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>Christians are often accused of using the Bible to prove the
Bible and many do not know how to answer this and some are even
embarrassed by it and try to set the Bible aside in their dialogue
with nonbelievers. This article shows how to effectively refute
this accusation. See <a href=
"http://creation.com/not-circular-reasoning" rel=
"nofollow">http://creation.com/not-circular-reasoning</a></p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by Aneslayer on 18 Jul `12, 11:49AM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>"Ad hominem again. Duh"</p>
<p>On contrary, ^that is an ad hominen as you have no more argument
but fallacy to defend your position. See
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html for clarification.</p>
</div>
</div>
Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:16:25 +0800sgforums.com:2173:455632BroInChristhttp://sgforums.com/forums/2173/topics/455632
To all who post in Reason for the Hope<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Topic started by despondent on 15 Jul `12, 12:14PM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>Please refrain from using profane words in your posts...I think
BIC has alredi said to post cordially...aggressive posts are still
fine but no profanities please...thank you...</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by despondent on 15 Jul `12, 12:14PM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>Please refrain from using profane words in your posts...I think
BIC has alredi said to post cordially...aggressive posts are still
fine but no profanities please...thank you...</p>
</div>
</div>
Sun, 15 Jul 2012 12:14:07 +0800sgforums.com:4245:455665despondenthttp://sgforums.com/forums/4245/topics/455665
Saved by grace for good works<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Topic started by despondent on 20 Jun `12, 6:24PM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>is likened to a baby&nbsp;being accepted as part of a family
without any merits on his part and is&nbsp;taught to do good and
reject the bad...</p>
<p>it starts from the family...not from the individual...</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by despondent on 06 Jul `12, 4:20PM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>Based on tat, it's also plain irresponsible to expect God to be
blamed for the wrongdoings of humans or even Christians...since we
r not babies but adults who noe wads rite n wrong...</p>
</div>
</div>
Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:24:41 +0800sgforums.com:4245:454341despondenthttp://sgforums.com/forums/4245/topics/454341
10 Questions Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer [ANS]<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Topic started by Jonah Yong on 06 Jan `12, 11:23PM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>The purpose of this is to provide short and quick answers to the
common "Why won't God Heal Amputees" collection of questions.</p>
<p><strong>Target Audience:</strong><br />
1. Non-Christians who are sincerely seeking truth, who are looking
for objective and solid evidence to believe in the God of the Bible
(see especially question 7).<br />
2. Christians who are looking to for answers to these questions
from the Bible, with the intended purpose of strengthening their
own faith.</p>
<p><strong>This topic is not intended for:</strong><br />
People who have already decided beforehand that they do not want to
believe in God, regardless of the evidence.&nbsp; For such people,
I cannot help you. God Himself will deal with you.<br />
<br />
Of such people, the Bible already says that they suppress the truth
by wickedness. Jesus said this in the Bible "This is the verdict:
Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of
light because their deeds were evil." <em>Examine your own heart.
What is the <strong>true</strong> reason you want to reject God? Is
it because you have examined and tested the Bible?&nbsp; Or is it
because you are afraid that God will take up your time and make it
inconvenient for you to practice what you do in secret, in thought,
word and deed?</em></p>
<p>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p>
<p>A few biblical guidelines to keep in mind as we go through each
question:<br />
<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1. God does not owe us anything.<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * If God did not heal anybody,
He would still be perfectly good and righteous.<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * If we were all in hell right
now without any chance of salvation, it would be exactly what we
deserve for our sins.<br />
<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2. God is not a vending machine.<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * Just because we pray for
something, even if we use the words "in Jesus's name" like a
magical formula, God does not have to say yes.<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * In Jesus's name = Amen =
according to the will of God, because Jesus always did the will of
the Father.<br />
<br />
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<strong>Question #1: Why Won't God Heal Amputees?</strong><br />
<br />
<em>[Romans 5:12] Therefore, just as sin entered the world through
one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all
men, because all sinned.<br />
[Romans 9:15] I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will
have compassion on whom I have compassion.</em><br />
<br />
Sickness, death, amputations, wars.&nbsp; All these started
happening after sin entered the world through the disobedience of
Adam and Eve.&nbsp; It is exactly what we deserve.&nbsp; In no way
can God be blamed for a person having an amputation nor can He be
blamed for not healing an amputee.<br />
<br />
God is the boss of the universe, and it is His right to do as He
wills.&nbsp; If God heals anybody, it is because He has mercy and
gives good things that the person does not deserve.<br />
<br />
&nbsp;The very fact that we are able to breathe, to see and to be
on the Internet right now, it is a result of God being
merciful.&nbsp; In no way do we deserve any of these good
things.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
If God were to give us exactly what we deserve, we would all be in
hell right now.&nbsp; But He delays His judgment and gives us time
to repent.<br />
<br />
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<strong>Question #2: Why are there so many starving children in our
world?</strong><br />
<br />
<em>[Romans 5:12] Therefore, just as sin entered the world through
one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all
men, because all sinned.<br />
[Romans 9:15] I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will
have compassion on whom I have compassion.</em><br />
<br />
Starvation and lack of food are not God's fault.&nbsp; God created
the world perfect.&nbsp; In his perfect world, there would never
have been any starvation, nor would there be any amputees.&nbsp;
But because of our sins, this is no longer a perfect world.<br />
<br />
The question we should ask is why isn't everybody starving?&nbsp;
The reason anyone has food to eat is because God has had mercy and
compassion on him, and has provided good things such as food.&nbsp;
This is why Christians give thanks to God for a meal.&nbsp; This is
why Christians give thanks to God for every good thing, because
every good thing is from God.<br />
<br />
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<strong>Question #3: Why does God demand the death of so many
innocent people in the Bible?</strong><br />
<br />
<em>[Ezekiel 18:4] For every living soul belongs to Me, the father
as well as the son - both alike belong to Me. The soul who sins is
the one who will die.<br />
[Romans3:10] As it is written: There is no-one righteous, not even
one; there is no-one who understands, no-one who seeks God.<br />
[Psalm 51:5] Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my
mother conceived me.</em><br />
<br />
The people were not innocent. They had sinned.&nbsp; The punishment
for sin is death.&nbsp; Every soul belongs to God, and it is His
right to decree when each person will die.&nbsp; If God decreed
that I died tonight, He would still be perfectly good and righteous
and just.<br />
<br />
Surprise, surprise.&nbsp; All have sinned.&nbsp; Therefore, all
deserve to die.&nbsp; Do you know that you are doomed die?&nbsp; It
is God's right to decide the time and date.&nbsp; You have until
then to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.<br />
<br />
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<strong>Question #4: Why does the Bible contain so much
anti-scientific nonsense?</strong><br />
<br />
<em>[2 Peter 3:3] First of all, you must understand that in the
last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil
desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever
since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the
beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago
by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of
water by water. By these waters also the world of that time was
deluged and destroyed.</em><br />
<br />
The Bible does not contain anti-scientific nonsense.&nbsp; If you
have trouble believing that God created the earth in six days or
that there was Noah's flood, I would recommend you take a look at
www.creation.com. They have some very scientific articles there
written by highly-qualified scientific people.&nbsp; And if you do
not like reading scientific articles, they even have videos that
make things easier to understand.<br />
<br />
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<strong>Question #5: Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in
the Bible?</strong><br />
<br />
<em>[Romans 6:20] When you were slaves to sin, you were free from
the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that
time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in
death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become
slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the
result is eternal life.</em><br />
<br />
Do you know that you are a slave?&nbsp; Everybody is either a slave
to sin or a slave to God. There is no middle ground. Slaves to sin
receive death.&nbsp; Slaves to God receive eternal life.&nbsp; Sin
is a bad master.&nbsp; God is a good master.<br />
<br />
The references to slavery in the Old Testament clearly demonstrate
this concept.&nbsp; Slaves who had a good master even wanted to
stay with their master though they may choose to go away. I have
tasted and found that my Master, God, is good.&nbsp; Therefore I
will always want to stay with Him.&nbsp; It is my desire that you
be a slave of the good Master.<br />
<br />
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<strong>Question #6: Why do bad things happen to good
people?</strong><br />
<br />
<em>[Ezekiel 18:4] For every living soul belongs to Me, the father
as well as the son - both alike belong to Me. The soul who sins is
the one who will die.<br />
[Romans3:10] As it is written: There is no-one righteous, not even
one; there is no-one who understands, no-one who seeks God.<br />
[1 Peter 4:12-13] Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful
trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening
to you. But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of
Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when His glory is
revealed.<br />
[1 Peter 3:19] So then, those who suffer according to God's will
should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to
do good.<br />
[1 John 5:19] We know that we are children of God, and that the
whole world is under the control of the evil one.</em><br />
<br />
There are no good people. Bad things happen to bad people.&nbsp; I
am a bad person.&nbsp; So are you. We may not be bad according to
man's standards, but we are bad according to God's standards.&nbsp;
The very fact that we are not in hell right now is evidence of
God's mercy.<br />
<br />
This is a fallen world.&nbsp; God made the world in a perfect
state.&nbsp; But now it is fallen, and it is not God's fault.&nbsp;
It is perfectly reasonable to expect bad things to happen to bad
people in a fallen world.<br />
<br />
Guess who has control over this fallen world?&nbsp; The Bible even
describes the devil as the god of this world who blinds the mind of
unbelievers so that they cannot see the light of the Gospel of the
glory of Christ, who is the image of God.&nbsp; But a time is
coming when God will create a new heaven and a new earth.<br />
<br />
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<strong>Question #7: Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles leave behind
any evidence?</strong><br />
<br />
<em>[John 20:29] Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me,
you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have
believed."</em><br />
<br />
Many people have believed in Jesus Christ without seeing any
evidence.&nbsp; But for those who need to see some evidence, He has
been kind enough to leave some evidence in various
categories.&nbsp; The following may be useful for you.&nbsp; Please
study, and then believe, for your own sake.<br />
<br />
Archaeological Evidence:<br />
<a href="http://www.formerthings.com/israelstele.htm" rel=
"nofollow" title=
"Archaeological Evidence">http://www.formerthings.com/israelstele.htm</a><br />
<br />
300+ Messianic Prophetic Evidence (things written hundreds of years
before Jesus was born were fulfilled by Him):<br />
<a href=
"http://lastdayscalendar.tripod.com/messianic_prophecies.htm" rel=
"nofollow" title=
"Messianic Prophetic Evidence">http://lastdayscalendar.tripod.com/messianic_prophecies.htm</a><br />
<br />
Scientific Evidence:<br />
<a href="http://www.creation.com" rel="nofollow" title=
"Scientific Evidence">http://www.creation.com</a></p>
<p>Scientific Foreknowledge:<br />
<a href="http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html" rel=
"nofollow" title=
"Scientific Foreknowledge">http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html</a></p>
<p>Last Days Prophecies (things written in the Bible that you can
see fulfilled with your own eyes today):<br />
<a href="http://www.eternal-productions.org/101prophecy.html" rel=
"nofollow" title=
"Last Days Prophetic Evidence">http://www.eternal-productions.org/101prophecy.html</a><br />
<br />
Historical Evidence (written by secular historians):<br />
<a href="http://www.facingthechallenge.org/outside.php" rel=
"nofollow" title=
"Historical Evidence">http://www.facingthechallenge.org/outside.php</a><br />
<br />
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<strong>Question #8: How do we explain the fact that Jesus has
never appeared to you?</strong><br />
<br />
<em>[Exodus 33:20] But you cannot see My face, for no-one may see
Me and live.<br />
[1 Corinthians 13:12] Now we see but a poor reflection as in a
mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I
shall know fully, even as I am fully known.<br />
[Colossians 1:28] We proclaim Him, admonishing and teaching
everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect
in Christ.<br />
[Philippians 3:12]Not that I have already obtained all this, or
have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that
for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.<br />
[John 20:31] But these are written that you may believe that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have
life in His name.</em><br />
<br />
One reason is because we are still connected to the sinful
flesh.&nbsp; With the exception of the time between Christ's birth
and His return to heaven, nobody has seen Him perfectly,
face-to-face.&nbsp; But the Bible promises that we shall see Jesus
face-to-face, when we are glorified after death.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
For now, we have the Bible to help us believe.&nbsp; It has been
tested and found to be trustworthy.&nbsp; If you have not read the
Bible, and you are thinking that it is too thick to read, you can
limit yourself to just one or two books.&nbsp; I think the book of
Romans gives a pretty good description of the big picture of God's
salvation plan.&nbsp; And any one of the four gospel accounts gives
a good peek into the life of Jesus on earth.<br />
<br />
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<strong>Question #9: Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and
drink his blood?</strong><br />
<br />
<em>[John 6:51] I am the living bread that came down from heaven.
If anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever. This bread is
my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.<br />
[Luke 22:19] And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave
it to them, saying, "This is My body given for you; do this in
remembrance of Me."<br />
[1 Corinthians 11:26] For whenever you eat this bread and drink
this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.<br />
[2 Corinthians 5:21] God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us,
so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.</em><br />
<br />
Jesus gave His perfectly lived out life and offered it to us. To
His followers, His perfect righteousness is imputed to them.&nbsp;
Jesus gave His blood to atone for our sins.&nbsp; The followers of
Jesus have their sins erased from them, paid for in full.<br />
<br />
God knows how forgetful we are.&nbsp; Therefore, the Lord's Supper
helps us to remember the focal point of the entire Bible - that
Jesus Christ gave His blood to atone for our sins and His life that
we have His perfect righteousness.<br />
<br />
Whenever we partake of the Lord's Supper, we proclaim to all
witnesses that Jesus Christ has done this great deed for our
salvation.<br />
<br />
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<strong>Question #10: Why do Christians get divorced at the same
rate as non-Christians?</strong><br />
<br />
<em>[Matthew 7:13-14] Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is
the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many
enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that
leads to life, and only a few find it.<br />
[Matthew 7:7] Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter
the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father
who is in heaven.<br />
[Luke 13:23-24] Someone asked Him, "Lord, are only a few people
going to be saved?" He said to them, "Make every effort to enter
through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to
enter and will not be able to."</em><br />
<br />
Not everyone who says that they are a Christian is really a
Christian.&nbsp; Just because a person's parents are Christian does
not make one a Christian.&nbsp; Just because it is printed on a
person's passport that the religion is "Christian" does not make
the person a believer, especially in today's modern world.&nbsp;
Church today has become fashionable.&nbsp; Pop and rock styles of
worship have made church attractive to the young people.&nbsp; I do
not mean to say that a certain style of music is necessarily a bad
thing, because the Bible actually encourages lively music to
worship God [Psalm 150].<br />
<br />
However, with so many people coming in the front door, it is
difficult to tell the sheep from the goats.&nbsp; Many people go to
church for social reasons, or they want to make business
contacts.&nbsp; The preaching of a prosperity gospel results in
many people running around who think that Jesus wants to help them
strike lottery or wants to give them a BMW.&nbsp; There are many
who miss out on the main point, which is that Jesus Christ came to
die for our sins and purchase our life back to God.<br />
<br />
There are many people who want to go to heaven.&nbsp; But not all
of these people want God to be there when they get to heaven.&nbsp;
In other words, they want a heaven without God, probably because
they have no desire to obey Him.&nbsp; But a true Christian will
want to please God.&nbsp; This happens as the Christian continues
to receive grace from God to grow in obedience, which makes him or
her less likely to get a divorce.<br />
<br />
However, not every person who gets a divorce is a
non-Christian.&nbsp; Christians do go through times of
weakness.&nbsp; Or perhaps the divorcee was a new Christian who had
not yet learned to obey God.&nbsp; Nevertheless, unless we can look
into the hearts of people, we are unable to discern who is really a
Christian and who is just for show.<br />
<br />
Now, the surveys conducted probably segregated Christians from
non-Christians based on what was printed on their passport, which
is not a very accurate indicator.&nbsp; If the surveys conducted
had segregated Christians based on whether a person desired to obey
Christ, then the results should show that Christians who get
divorced are very few indeed.<br />
<br />
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<strong>CONCLUSION</strong><br />
<br />
1. God is holy, holy, holy.<br />
2. You are evil, evil, evil.<br />
3. Jesus Christ paid the penalty for your evil and gave you His
perfect righteousness<br />
4. The evidence that number 3 is true is that, within this
lifetime, you repent of your sins and believe in Jesus
Christ.<br />
<br />
Still think that you are not evil?&nbsp; Take the test to find out
if this is true.<br />
<br />
<strong>The Good Test:</strong><br />
http://www.eternal-productions.org/thegoodtestvideo.htm</p>
<p>I plead with you, together with all the apostles and saints, to
come to Christ, urgently.</p>
<p>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p>
<p><strong>Recommended Resources:</strong></p>
<p>Searchable Database of Questions About God:<br />
http://www.gotquestions.org</p>
<p>Solid, Biblical Video Repository (Videos arranged by questions
and topics):<br />
http://www.illbehonest.com</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><img alt="" style="border: 0px solid blue;" /></p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by BroInChrist on 01 Jul `12, 9:37PM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<blockquote>
<div class="quote_from">Originally posted by Jacky Woo:</div>
<div class="quote_body">
<p>full of crap, holy crap.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br />
Indeed! Because CRAP means</p>
<p>Christian Refuting Atheist Polemics</p>
</div>
</div>
Fri, 06 Jan 2012 23:23:08 +0800sgforums.com:1381:444989Jonah Yonghttp://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/444989
Girls who everyday wear skirt<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Topic started by single_alone on 05 Sep `11, 8:46PM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<div>Have you observed in your office that there are some girls who
everyday will wear skirt to work and some even wear mini skirt to
work everyday and most of these girls are chio bu who are young and
put on alot of make up?<br />
<br />
What do you think is the reason why they everyday wear skirt to
work?<br />
<br />
They want to show off their sexy legs to seduce the boss so they
can hook up a rich guy to support them?<br />
<br />
Or wear skirt will let more air go into their smelly chee bye and
make it more cooling than wearing pants?</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Last reply by School Skirt Lover on 15 Jun `12, 1:44AM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>guys and girls should wear skirts</p>
<p>better for health</p>
</div>
</div>
Mon, 05 Sep 2011 20:46:54 +0800sgforums.com:8:437448single_alonehttp://sgforums.com/forums/8/topics/437448
I've always wanted to ask this...<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Topic started by AIex on 10 Dec `11, 8:56AM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>If humans are descended from Adam and Eve, then who do Adam and
Eve's children mate with?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by Tcmc on 06 Jun `12, 3:06PM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<blockquote>
<div class="quote_from">Originally posted by BroInChrist:</div>
<div class="quote_body">
<p>I believe&nbsp;it is ideal that the family unit shares the same
faith. It is always easier to be travelling in the same direction.
The father, being the head of the house, can exercise significant
influence over the rest of the family members to bring about an
alignment of religious beliefs, but it should not be compelled. I
think there will be greater relationship bonding when both hearts
and minds are won through rational and moral persuasion. If you
seriously desire to see it happen, I wish you the best.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>BIC</p>
<p>Some families work very well with different religious
beliefs.</p>
<p>On the contrary I have seen families with the same faith (all
christian, or all muslim) breaking apart and having frequent
fights.</p>
<p>Not every father desires or wants to be the head of the
household like you.</p>
<p>In many MODERN families (your mindset is still very medieval),
fathers and mothers are both heads.</p>
<p>THE WORLD does not only work with your morals and your way of
life.</p>
</div>
</div>
Sat, 10 Dec 2011 08:56:24 +0800sgforums.com:1381:443237AIexhttp://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/443237
Anyone wanna share conversion stories?<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Topic started by Tcmc on 27 Apr `12, 1:16PM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>Buddhists converting to christians? Any stories?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>CHristians converting to muslims? Any stories?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Or buddhists converting to hindus? Any stories?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by despondent on 06 Jun `12, 12:29PM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>he will show the part when jesus prayed to God the Father...he
went down on his knees and prayed...right, tcmc?</p>
</div>
</div>
Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:16:08 +0800sgforums.com:1381:451374Tcmchttp://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/451374
Six Questions to Ask An Atheist<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Topic started by BroInChrist on 04 Apr `12, 12:49PM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>Many times, as Christians, we find ourselves on the defensive
against the critiques and questions of atheists.&nbsp;These
questions, then, are meant to be a part of a
conversation.&nbsp;They are not, in and of themselves, arguments or
"proofs" for God.&nbsp; They are commonly asked existential or
experiential questions that both atheists and theists alike can
ponder.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
<strong>1</strong>.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <strong>If there is no God,
“the big questions” remain unanswered</strong>, so how do we answer
the following questions: Why is there something rather than
nothing?&nbsp; Why is there conscious, intelligent life on this
planet, and is there any meaning to this life?&nbsp; If there is
meaning, what kind of meaning and how is it found?&nbsp; Does human
history lead anywhere, or is it all in vain since death is merely
the end?&nbsp; How do you come to understand good and evil, right
and wrong without a transcendent signifier?&nbsp; If these concepts
are merely social constructions, or human opinions, whose opinion
does one trust in determining what is good or bad, right or
wrong?&nbsp; If you are content within atheism, what circumstances
would serve to make you open to other answers?</p>
<p><strong>2</strong>.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <strong>If we reject the
existence of God, we are left with a crisis of meaning</strong>, so
why don’t we see more atheists like Jean Paul Sartre, or Friedrich
Nietzsche, or Michel Foucault?&nbsp; These three philosophers, who
also embraced atheism, recognized that in the absence of God, there
was no transcendent meaning beyond one’s own self-interests,
pleasures, or tastes.&nbsp; Without God, there is a crisis of
meaning, and these three thinkers, among others, show us a world of
just stuff, thrown out into space and time, going nowhere, meaning
nothing.</p>
<p><strong>3</strong>.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <strong>When people have
embraced atheism, the historical results can be horrific</strong>,
as in the regimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who saw religion as
the problem and worked to eradicate it.&nbsp; In other words, what
set of actions are consistent with particular belief
commitments?&nbsp; It could be argued, that these behaviors – of
the regimes in question - are more consistent with the implications
of atheism.&nbsp; Though, I'm thankful that many of the atheists I
know do not live the implications of these beliefs out for
themselves like others did!&nbsp; It could be argued that the
socio-political ideologies could very well be the outworking of a
particular set of beliefs – beliefs that posited the ideal state as
an atheistic one.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>4</strong>.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <strong>If there is no
God, the problems of evil and suffering are in no way
solved,</strong> so where is the hope of redemption, or meaning for
those who suffer?&nbsp; Suffering is just as tragic, if not more
so, without God because there is no hope of ultimate justice, or of
the suffering being rendered meaningful or transcendent, redemptive
or redeemable.&nbsp; It might be true that there is no God to blame
now, but neither is there a God to reach out to for strength,
transcendent meaning, or comfort.&nbsp; Why would we seek the
alleviation of suffering without objective morality grounded in a
God of justice?</p>
<p><strong>5</strong>.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <strong>If there is no
God, we lose the very standard by which we critique religions and
religious people,</strong> so whose opinion matters most?&nbsp;
Whose voice will be heard?&nbsp; Whose tastes or preferences will
be honored?&nbsp; In the long run, human tastes and opinions have
no more weight than we give them, and who are we to give them
meaning anyway?&nbsp; Who is to say that lying, or cheating or
adultery or child molestation are wrong –really wrong?&nbsp; Where
do those standards come from?&nbsp; Sure, our societies might make
these things “illegal” and impose penalties or consequences for
things that are not socially acceptable, but human cultures have at
various times legally or socially disapproved of everything from
believing in God to believing the world revolves around the sun;
from slavery, to interracial marriage, from polygamy to
monogamy.&nbsp; Human taste, opinion law and culture are hardly
dependable arbiters of Truth.</p>
<p><strong>6</strong>.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <strong>If there is no
God, we don’t make sense,</strong> so how do we explain human
longings and desire for the transcendent?&nbsp; How do we even
explain human questions for meaning and purpose, or inner thoughts
like, why do I feel unfulfilled or empty?&nbsp; Why do we hunger
for the spiritual, and how do we explain these longings if nothing
can exist beyond the material world?&nbsp;</p>
<p>I am submitting the above questions for serious discussion,
dialogue and debate. No trolls please.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><em>Source:</em> <a href=
"http://www.rzim.org/community/engagingconversations/tabid/105/entryid/14/default.aspx"
rel=
"nofollow"><em>http://www.rzim.org/community/engagingconversations/tabid/105/entryid/14/default.aspx</em></a></p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by Nelstar on 01 Jun `12, 11:58AM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<blockquote>
<div class="quote_from">Originally posted by BroInChrist:</div>
<div class="quote_body">
<p>1. You are definitely uninformed about what atheism is. Please
go beyond dictionary definitions and actually read up on atheism
and process the appropriate information. Again the test is this, do
you know of&nbsp;an atheist who does not believe in evolution? If
you can, then please also explain why he does not believe in
evolution. Yes, I believe the universe has a cause and must have a
cause. Is that a problem? If so, why?</p>
<p>2. Still leaves the question unanswered. Even if you do not like
the explanation of an invisible dog, that doesn't mean you go about
ignoring it and pretend it doesn't need any explanation. Is that
how you go about doing science?</p>
<p>3. Well, in that case your views about my views are nothing but
your own opinions and beliefs. Here's <img src=
"/images/emoticons/classic/icon_lol.gif" alt=
"icon_lol.gif" /><img src="/images/emoticons/classic/icon_lol.gif"
alt="icon_lol.gif" /><img src=
"/images/emoticons/classic/icon_lol.gif" alt=
"icon_lol.gif" />&nbsp;to you.</p>
<p>4. You missed the point. The bad approach refers to sidestepping
the entire issue of how the paw prints got there and simply
dismissing the views of others. As for me and my Bible, I am not
assuming&nbsp;superiority, I am saying that my views are right
because they are based on the Bible which is God's infallible Word.
You can disagree with me of course but that will simply earn you
this <img src="/images/emoticons/classic/icon_lol.gif" alt=
"icon_lol.gif" /><img src="/images/emoticons/classic/icon_lol.gif"
alt="icon_lol.gif" /><img src=
"/images/emoticons/classic/icon_lol.gif" alt="icon_lol.gif" /></p>
<p>5. Why divert to theism when I was asking you if you know what
atheism entails beyond the brief definitions in the dictionary?
Atheists comes in all stripes and colours but they all hold to some
common beliefs which I suppose you have no idea what they are. Just
because the dictionary has little to say about atheism does not
mean there is nothing much about atheism to say. Please step out of
your little dictionary box world and read up. See <a href=
"http://creation.com/what-all-atheists-have-to-believe" rel=
"nofollow">http://creation.com/what-all-atheists-have-to-believe</a></p>
<p>6. No scientific proof for God is not the same as saying that
God does not exist. There is no scientific proof for the laws of
logic either. You can't see them, smell them, touch them, hear
them, put them in a test-tube and do experiments on them.
Geddit?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>1. Yes, you are all-knowing again. I bow to your all-knowing
knowledge of atheists. I am not an atheist afterall since I'm
agnostic. So you are so right since you claim agnostic are
atheists.&nbsp;<img src="/images/emoticons/classic/icon_lol.gif"
alt="icon_lol.gif" /></p>
<p>2. Doing science, whoa, hang on dude. That's a new AV
title.&nbsp;<img src="/images/emoticons/classic/icon_lol.gif" alt=
"icon_lol.gif" /></p>
<p>3. Glad you can.&nbsp;<img src=
"/images/emoticons/classic/icon_lol.gif" alt="icon_lol.gif" /></p>
<p>4. You finally caught on!&nbsp;<img src=
"/images/emoticons/classic/icon_lol.gif" alt="icon_lol.gif" /></p>
<p>5. Yes, the dictionary is not a good reference. I should let the
teachers know that. Your creation website is the better
reference.&nbsp;<img src="/images/emoticons/classic/icon_lol.gif"
alt="icon_lol.gif" /></p>
<p>6. Yes, you know Science. ROFLMAO.&nbsp;<img src=
"/images/emoticons/classic/icon_lol.gif" alt="icon_lol.gif" /></p>
</div>
</div>
Wed, 04 Apr 2012 12:49:37 +0800sgforums.com:1381:450155BroInChristhttp://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/450155
Christian Arguments for God’s Existence - Refutations<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Topic started by Ghostpel on 15 Nov `11, 11:33AM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>Christian Arguments for God’s Existence – Refutations from
Non-Christians.</p>
<p>This thread is dedicated to refute some of the theological
arguments commonly put forward by the christians to support the
reality of their God, by exposing the logical fallacies inherent in
these arguements. They will be dismantled point by point showing
that these arguements are based purely on
presumptions/presupposition and errorous cognitive function and
epistemology.Thus their belief in God which is based on such shaky
ground is unreality.</p>
<p>The refutation to each of these arguements will be presented in
each post.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by despondent on 01 Jun `12, 11:57AM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>he wants to prove if his stand that truth is subjective is
indeed true...which means proving the notion ''truth is
subjective'' to be objective...</p>
</div>
</div>
Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:33:19 +0800sgforums.com:1381:441588Ghostpelhttp://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/441588
Creationism, Intelligent Design &amp; Evolutionism<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Topic started by BroInChrist on 12 Apr `12, 5:53PM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>I am starting this thread on the above topic since there does
not seem to be a thread on this, at least not one that is being
kept alive. Anyway, my first post on this thread is from an
unlikely source.</p>
<p><a href=
"http://discovermagazine.com/photos/07-animals-harnessed-nanotechnology"
rel=
"nofollow">http://discovermagazine.com/photos/07-animals-harnessed-nanotechnology</a></p>
<p>I think all the above creatures show remarkable evidence of
design features that enable them to do what they do. And this
points to an intelligent designer, God.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by laurence82 on 01 Jun `12, 6:37AM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>Uh huh, irrelevant point, if you xtians wouldnt &nbsp;see the
light, dont go blame on atheists</p>
<p>Thats like blaming the neighbours for the poo i make in my own
house</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</div>
</div>
Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:53:01 +0800sgforums.com:1381:450563BroInChristhttp://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/450563
Man City vs QPR<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Topic started by dragg on 13 May `12, 11:50PM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>rangers really make city look silly.<br />
cant even beat 10-men rangers.</p>
<p>city dont even have a single striker with shooting skills.<br />
keep making meaningless passes.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by charlize on 16 May `12, 7:53PM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS0sfbqwQSU" rel=
"nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS0sfbqwQSU</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><img src="/images/emoticons/classic/icon_lol.gif" alt=
"icon_lol.gif" /></p>
</div>
</div>
Sun, 13 May 2012 23:50:34 +0800sgforums.com:2497:452284dragghttp://sgforums.com/forums/2497/topics/452284
Makiyo and friends bash cabbie<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Topic started by dragg on 09 Feb `12, 8:56AM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>jialat liao.</p>
<p>she and 3 of her japanese friends got caught beating up a taxi
driver.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by dragg on 27 Apr `12, 9:09AM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>No jail for Makiyo</p>
<p><span class="">TAIPEI</span>: Neither Taiwan singer-actress
Makiyo nor her male Japanese friend Takateru Tomoyori will be going
to jail for their attack on 55-year-old cabby Lin Yu Jun in
February, reported Taiwan media.</p>
<p>The judge presiding over the pair’s cabby assault case took into
account the prosecution’s recommendation for probation, and on
Thursday sentenced Makiyo to ten months in jail with three year’s
probation.</p>
<p>Tomoyori was sentenced to one year in jail with four year’s
probation.</p>
<p>This means as long as they stay out of trouble for the next few
years, Makiyo and Tomoyori won’t have to see the insides of a jail
cell.</p>
<p>The judge also found that the charges against the two had to be
amended from causing grievous hurt to causing hurt, as their attack
on Lin did not result in him suffering from any permanent injuries,
and he is recovering well from the incident.</p>
<p>Makiyo and Tomoyori had previously agreed to settle the case
with Lin by paying him NT$3 million (S$128,000).</p>
<p>In light of the settlement, prosecutors revised the penalties
they sought for Makiyo and Tomoyori, and recommended that their
sentences be commuted to probation.</p>
<p>-CNA/ha<br />
======</p>
</div>
</div>
Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:56:15 +0800sgforums.com:1533:446923dragghttp://sgforums.com/forums/1533/topics/446923
Scientists Discover New Clue to Chemical Origins of Life<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Topic started by BroInChrist on 26 Jan `12, 10:48AM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p><span class="">ScienceDaily (Jan. 24, 2012)</span> — Organic
chemists at the University of York have made a significant advance
towards establishing the origin of the carbohydrates (sugars) that
form the building blocks of life. <strong><span style=
"text-decoration: underline;">A team led by Dr Paul Clarke in the
Department of Chemistry at York has re-created a process which
could have occurred in the prebiotic world.</span></strong> Working
with colleagues at the University of Nottingham, they have made the
first step towards showing how simple sugars -- threose and
erythrose -- developed. The research is published in <em>Organic
&amp; Biomolecular Chemistry</em>.</p>
<p>All biological molecules have an ability to exist as left-handed
forms or right-handed forms. All sugars in biology are made up of
the right-handed form of molecules and yet all the amino acids that
make up the peptides and proteins are made up of the left-handed
form. The researchers found using simple left-handed amino acids to
catalyse the formation of sugars resulted in the production of
predominately right-handed form of sugars. It could explain how
carbohydrates originated and why the right-handed form dominates in
nature.</p>
<p>Dr Clarke said: "There are a lot of fundamental questions about
the origins of life and many people think they are questions about
biology. <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">But for
life to have evolved, you have to have a moment when non-living
things become living</span></strong> -- everything up to that point
is chemistry...We are trying to understand the chemical origins of
life. One of the interesting questions is where carbohydrates come
from because they are the building blocks of DNA and RNA. What we
have achieved is the first step on that pathway to show how simple
sugars -- threose and erythrose -- originated. <strong><span style=
"text-decoration: underline;">We generated these sugars from a very
simple set of materials that most scientists believe were around at
the time that life began</span></strong>."</p>
<p>My comments on this article are as follows:</p>
<p>1. Here we have an admission that evolution requires that
nonliving things somehow gave rise to living things. In short, the
idea of life coming from nonlife (abiogenesis) is part and parcel
of evolution, in fact, the starting point of biological evolution.
Evolutionists will call this chemical evolution to distinguish it
from biological evolution, but&nbsp;it is still evolution i.e.
change over time. Yet I have debated many atheists and
evolutionists who insisted that abiogenesis had nothing to do with
evolution at all! And when I tell them that they are wrong they
will then ridicule me for not knowing what evolution is all about.
Anyway, the evolutionists (which&nbsp;includes all
atheists)&nbsp;believe a scientifically disproven notion that
spontaneous generation did occur (abiogenesis is just a new tweaked
and more palatable&nbsp;version), a belief that violates a law of
nature, the law of biogenesis.</p>
<p>2. When reading this article, one must not forget that here we
have INTELLIGENT people working on how to RE-CREATE a process that
is believed to be non-directed,&nbsp;non-intelligent, random and
wholly naturalistic. In other words, what this entire endeavour
proves at the end of the day if scientists did get to "create" life
in the lab is that intelligent design is involved! Not only that,
note how in trying to unravel the origins of carbohydrates the
researchers have to ASSUME the pre-existence of materials to work
with. This only begs the question of where these materials come
from, and thus the origins of life question is further pushed
back.</p>
<p>The bottom line is this: Evolutionists have NO CLUE at all as to
the origins of life. A purely naturalistic origin of life is
impossible, yet the alternative (that God created life) is to them
unthinkable because it is uncomfortable to them. As such I am of
the view that to be an atheist is really not a viable option at
all. It is illogical, irrational, and untenable as a worldview.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by laurence82 on 03 Apr `12, 10:47PM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>close and ban</p>
</div>
</div>
Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:48:26 +0800sgforums.com:1381:446087BroInChristhttp://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/446087
Jesus was a Hindu Monk and Survived the Cross<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Topic started by Turbulent Times on 06 Dec `11, 10:41PM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>Documentary from BBC that unravels the myths and theories of
Jesus life and death:</p>
<p>1. Jesus survived the cross</p>
<p>2. Jesus was a Hindu monk</p>
<p>3. Jesus burial site discovered</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YbUEZfJJaQ" rel=
"nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YbUEZfJJaQ</a></p>
<p>What do you think? WHat do you believe?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by BroInChrist on 11 Feb `12, 5:41PM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<blockquote>
<div class="quote_from">Originally posted by starhawk:</div>
<div class="quote_body">
<p>one day, a buddhist, a muslim, a christian, a freethinker, an
atheist strike toto...</p>
<p>all of them have 1 million each.. &nbsp;let me ask u.. who will
be the most richest n happiest among them all?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br />
What is your question supposed to prove? What's your point?</p>
</div>
</div>
Tue, 06 Dec 2011 22:41:46 +0800sgforums.com:1381:442976Turbulent Timeshttp://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/442976
Questions For Christians<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Topic started by DailyFreeGames.com on 11 Dec `11, 7:38PM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>I have some questions, hopefully people here can answer and then
I have a better understanding as well...</p>
<p>1) Why didn't the Bible says anything about like the extinction
of Dinosaurs or about T-Rex etc?</p>
<p>2) How do we know that the Bible wasn't written by the Devil in
an attempt to deceive us to go to Hell? I mean we do know from
Bible teachings that he's a really really really smart Devil having
lived so many years more than humans, he certainly can deceive
people easily since he even deceived Adam &amp; Eve.</p>
<p>3) Why did the Bible say that the universe was created 6000
years ago? I mean, that conflicts with science that says the
universe is many millions years old.</p>
<p>4) I believe God is against incest? But when he created Adam
&amp; Eve, then in order to populate Earth, then incest is quite
obvious will happen, isn't it contradictory to say Yes last time
and then say No now?</p>
<p>5) If everyone comes from Adam &amp; Eve, then shouldn't we all
be Ang Moh instead of some Asians, some Africans... I mean we
certainly don't expect African couple, even with 100 generations
later, suddenly give birth to a Chinese dude? LOL I would suspect
my wife is cheating on me!!!</p>
<p>Someone who can answer these questions please help. Personally,
I believe in God but it's damn irritating to have unanswered
questions.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by BroInChrist on 26 Jan `12, 10:56AM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<blockquote>
<div class="quote_from">Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:</div>
<div class="quote_body">
<p>so&nbsp;is there any significance or symbolic meaning?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Jesus at this meal instituted what is called by many "the Holy
Communion" or the "Eucharist", by which believers are to come
together regularly to break&nbsp;bread and drink from a cup of wine
to proclaim His death until He comes again. This the early
Christians did in each other's homes as often as they can. This
partaking of the bread and wine is both a demonstration and a
fostering of the unity of believers in Christ.</p>
</div>
</div>
Sun, 11 Dec 2011 19:38:27 +0800sgforums.com:1381:443337DailyFreeGames.comhttp://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/443337
A Defense of the Bible<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Topic started by BroInChrist on 26 Dec `11, 12:49AM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>Dear fellow believers,</p>
<p>Here’s a link to an ebook with the above title for your
edification.</p>
<pre>
<code><a href=
"http://writings.bibletruthforyou.com/2011/11/gary-baxter/defence-bible-2nd-edition/"
rel=
"nofollow">http://writings.bibletruthforyou.com/2011/11/ga...</a></code>
</pre>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by BroInChrist on 21 Jan `12, 8:48AM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<blockquote>
<div class="quote_from">Originally posted by Jacky Woo:</div>
<div class="quote_body">
<p>spot on. but xtians is adamant god is self created.,
unbelievable isnt it. but then xtians rationale and logic are
irrational and illogic to begin with.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br />
Really Jacky? Please provide evidence that Christians are adamant
that God is self-created. I am calling your bluff on this. And
let's not forget that atheists believe the universe made itself.
Duh.</p>
</div>
</div>
Mon, 26 Dec 2011 00:49:54 +0800sgforums.com:1381:444212BroInChristhttp://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/444212
Why Human CREATED Religions?<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Topic started by Asromanista2001 on 19 Jul `10, 4:25PM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>the Human Ego and Desire to Exist led to the creations of
religions..............think about it and instinctively, you know
it's true.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>people can't accept that after their physical lives ended,
they'll be gone and forgotten............. they feel they're
special and their lives mean something............that ego, the
fear of dying and the desire to exist created the idea of a
permanent soul/self......................they think they're
separate and different from all others...........</p>
<p>but then they've seen and know people suffer physical
deaths..............so they thought '' Ah Ha ! there must be an
Eternal After-Life after my mortal life ends !''</p>
<p>but where will that After-Life be at ?..................so
people think it must be a most pleasurable and happy place since
who wants to live Eternally in a shithole, right ?...............so
let's call that dreamed-up Utopia........Heaven !</p>
<p>so the next question will be WHO created Heaven ??? well, just
as Man has to create the tools he needs..........then SOMEONE must
have created Man and Heaven and everything else !</p>
<p>so.........HEY PRESTO !!!............let's call this dreamed-up
Creator/Maker...........God............</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>that's the reason why all religions contained stories that's far
far too HUMAN to be Divine.............plus full of loopholes and
flaws...........</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by Demon Bane on 06 Jan `12, 10:36AM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<blockquote>
<div class="quote_from">Originally posted by BroInChrist:</div>
<div class="quote_body">
<p>I think Einstein was probably a deist. See also <a href=
"http://einsteinandreligion.com/" rel=
"nofollow">http://einsteinandreligion.com/</a></p>
<p>Newton was a Christian, albeit there is some controversy over
his views regarding the Trinity. See also <a href=
"http://creation.com/sir-isaac-newton-1642-1727" rel=
"nofollow">http://creation.com/sir-isaac-newton-1642-1727</a></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Hey thanks! That'll be helpful....<img src=
"/images/emoticons/classic/icon_lol.gif" alt="icon_lol.gif" /></p>
</div>
</div>
Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:25:42 +0800sgforums.com:1381:405699Asromanista2001http://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/405699
Is there a law to ban evangelizing in public?<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>
Topic started by banDoorToDoorEvangelizing on 16 Oct `11, 3:14PM:
</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<p>I am annoyed by the Sunday afternoon door-to-door evangelizing
by christian pairs of ladies, knocking on doors and refusing to
respond until the residents come to open the door.&nbsp; How should
I go about to ban or complaint against such public nuisance?</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class='post'>
<div class='author'>
<em>Last reply by BroInChrist on 31 Dec `11, 12:56PM:</em>
</div>
<div class='body'>
<blockquote>
<div class="quote_from">Originally posted by laurence82:</div>
<div class="quote_body">
<p><br />
certainly not with the trolls here</p>
<p>i seriously wanna know which church BIC go to</p>
<p>does he pray?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br />
Yes I do pray. And why would you want to know which church I go to
anyway, seriously?</p>
</div>
</div>
Sun, 16 Oct 2011 15:14:22 +0800sgforums.com:1381:439757banDoorToDoorEvangelizinghttp://sgforums.com/forums/1381/topics/439757